Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that in the west gallery there are members of the fifth Agincourt Scout Troop from Bradenburg Public School, along with Mrs. Smart. I am sure the members would like to welcome them to the Legislature today.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

EDUCATION GRANTS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform members of the House that in three weeks time we will be mailing to all school boards in the province copies of the 1975 general legislative grants and apportionment regulations.

Once again, these regulations will indicate that the government will continue to bear 60 per cent of the total cost of elementary and secondary education in the province.

In 1975, a school board of average wealth will receive provincial grant support at the rate of 62 per cent of recognized ordinary expenditures. This is unchanged from the 1974 regulation.

The new regulations contain several important refinements, and I would like to draw attention to one of these today because it has significance for a number of school boards throughout the province.

It is now almost six months since we announced the education grant and expenditure ceilings for 1975. Prior to that announcement, we had analysed in great detail all the information available at the time regarding the probable impact of inflation on school boards in the coming year. Great care was taken to set the 1975 ceilings at levels that would allow school boards to cope with increased costs over which they would have little or no control.

This analysis led to the decision, last October, that the 1975 ceilings would be 13 per cent over the 1974 ceilings. An additional amount of $80 was added to encourage improvements in basic instructional programmes at the elementary school level.

It was our best judgement, six months ago, that the 13 per cent increase would be adequate to cope with inflation. Today, however, school boards find themselves faced with new realities brought about by continuing inflation. Increased costs of such items as heating fuel, light, maintenance, paper and classroom supplies have continued to squeeze school board budgets even more than anticipated.

Because of these trends, some boards are faced with budget decisions which could have a detrimental effect on classroom programmes and pupils. We have said repeatedly that we do not want this to happen and we intend to stand by that commitment.

Thus, because of continued inflation, Mr. Speaker, the 1975 educational grant and expenditure ceilings will be increased by an additional $50 per pupil. The revised 1975 ceilings are $926 per elementary school pupil and $1,441 per secondary school pupil.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): We still aren’t closing the gap.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have examined the effects of spiralling inflation on school board budgets. It is our firm conclusion that this mid-year increase will very adequately allow school boards to accommodate unavoidable rising costs, provided of course that they continue to budget public funds in a responsible manner.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That’s a fatuous comment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In this regard, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the whole question of teachers’ salary increases is a very serious problem for school trustees in many parts of Ontario. Right now, in Ottawa, the board of education has offered its secondary school teachers a package representing a 24 per cent increase. This is an offer that is well in excess of the current rate of increase in the cost-of-living index. It represents a large real increase even after allowing for inflation.

However, Mr. Speaker, in spite of this offer, the Ottawa secondary school teachers are out on strike to support their demand for a huge improvement in salaries, fringe benefits and working conditions. The salary demand alone represents an increase of about 47 per cent.

I have said many times, Mr. Speaker, that teachers are entitled to fair and reasonable salaries. Their salaries should reflect increases in inflation, together with other economic trends in the community. They should have the right to bargain for improved compensation and they should have the right to bargain for working conditions.

But to withdraw services to support demands that are, by any standard, exorbitant and unreasonable, is grossly unfair to students and to taxpayers, who pay 100 per cent of the costs of operating the schools.

These are unusual and difficult economic times. This government strongly believes that reason and restraint in wage increases are absolutely necessary today. We believe that all employees, those in the public sector and those in the private sector as well, must be reasonable in their wage demands. All of us should be setting examples in our wage demands in order to help stem the inflationary spiral.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The government never says that about prices, does it?

Mr. Foulds: How about prices and profits?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is frightening to think what would happen to our economy if everyone in Ontario walked off their jobs unless their employers gave them a 47 per cent salary increase.

Mr. Speaker, the adjusted educational spending ceilings for 1975 are totally fair and reasonable. There is not a school board in the province that should not now have funds at its disposal to maintain the present quality of education, and at the same time to bargain with its teachers toward settlements that are fair, equitable and reasonable.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a pretty large claim.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But I can say right now that the ceilings are not high enough to allow a school board to accommodate outrageously high salary increases and other excessive demands.

Mr. Foulds: The minister is really waving the big stick.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government’s policy of education spending ceilings has been enunciated clearly and strongly many times. This policy of limiting the annual rate of increase in school board budgets still stands firm. The ceilings continue to be a safeguard for taxpayers, while at the same time allowing school board budget increases that are realistic in these inflationary times.

Tax dollars obviously come from only one source, Mr. Speaker, the pockets of our citizens. There is not a bottomless pit, and all locally-elected school trustees, as well as teachers, must recognize this. There is another very practical incentive for every school board to keep its spending increases within the levels allowed by the ceilings. As has been the practice since 1971, the effective rate of grant for any board which exceeds the ceilings will be reduced in the following year. This penalty will be proportionate to the size of the excess.

This is a meaningful way of encouraging boards to live within their means, while at the same time recognizing the responsible efforts of school boards that do not exceed their ceilings.

Mr. Speaker, inflation is making life difficult for most people. Reason and restraint are two important prerequisites for successfully riding out this trying economic period.

The changes that will be incorporated in our 1975 regulations will enable school boards to make responsible budgetary decisions, and at the same time allow meaningful negotiations with teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to inform the House at this time that I met this morning with the members of the Ottawa board of education and the representatives of the Ottawa secondary school teachers. I have appointed and made available to both parties Mr. Owen Shime to act as a mediator.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Good man.

Mr. Cassidy: Good appointment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Shime will be contacting both parties immediately. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Shime is a Toronto lawyer and practising labour arbitrator and a former vice-chairman of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. He was most recently the mediator in the dispute between the Lakehead board of education and its secondary teachers.

Mr. Foulds: He did a good job.

PUBLIC SERVICE MILEAGE RATES

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the members will recall that effective April 1, 1974, the government revised the mileage rates paid to an employee who uses his automobile on government business. The change was from 15 cents to 16 cents for mileage up to 5,000 miles; from eight cents to 13 cents between 5,000 and 15,000 miles; and from seven cents to 11 cents for mileage in excess of 15,000 miles. An additional one cent per mile is paid for mileage in northern Ontario.

The new rates were offered to the CSAO on April 4, 1974, but were not accepted by the CSAO’s negotiating team. The rates were implemented as scheduled for employees excluded from the bargaining unit.

Later in the year, the increased cost of owning and operating a motor vehicle convinced the government that a further increase was warranted, and the rate for the first 5,000 miles was increased from 16 cents to 18 cents per mile. Rates for mileage in excess of 5,000 miles were not changed at that time.

The second increase was offered to the CSAO on Oct. 4, 1974, without prejudice to continuing negotiations, but was again rejected by the bargaining team.

I am pleased to confirm that the CSAO has now accepted these rate changes and bargaining unit employees will receive the benefit of the new rates as soon as the authorizing documents can be processed.

In keeping with an earlier commitment to employees, the new rates will be effective from April 1, 1974, and Aug. 1, 1974, as the case may be, and the mileage claims for bargaining unit employees will be revised accordingly.

Mr. Stokes: And made negotiable.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to report on planning for the North Pickering project. During October and November, 1974, three modified concept plans were presented for public review. The public was asked to evaluate the planning aims in each concept.

This phase has been completed. Based on the public review and technical studies, fundamental decisions on future planning for the 25,000-acre site have been made.

Mr. Speaker, the public’s review and our technical studies both recognized that agricultural land should be oriented toward Oshawa, with a maximum separation from Metropolitan Toronto.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, the recommended plan will provide for two communities -- an urban community with a population of 70,000 to 90,000 persons, located on the Oshawa side of the West Duffin Creek, which bisects the site, and an agricultural community of 17,000 acres located in the area west of the West Duffin Creek.

The urban community’s location has sufficient flexibility to permit refinement, modification or growth in the remainder of the inner planning area. It not only responds to public preferences, but also coincides with provincial objectives to stimulate economic growth to the east of Metro. It demonstrates what this government has been working toward all along -- the planning for orderly growth east of Metropolitan Toronto. Despite charges by some to the contrary, this government is very much in touch with the public and is planning for the future --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): It is the federal people the minister is after.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- in a way that meets public priorities.

Mr. Cassidy: And in the same breath the government is putting 100,000 people into Brampton. That is their planning.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: By locating the agricultural community on the west portion of the site, we are not only providing a separation from Toronto of some 26 square miles, but also ensuring that a viable farm component will be retained in that area. The staff of my ministry, along with that of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), is now working with area farmers to develop an innovative farm lease programme which will encourage farm production in the agricultural community.

As well, Housing ministry staff will be recommending land-use zoning to implement the two-community concept and to recognize the role of the existing hamlets of Locust Hill, Whitevale, Cherrywood, Cherrywood East and Martin’s subdivision. An architect-planner is now working with hamlet residents in this regard. Mr. Speaker, the two-community concept forms the basis of the plan which will be submitted to the North Pickering Development Corp.

The corporation, if it agrees, will in turn use the plan as a basis for development and for official plan amendments to be proposed to the municipalities which have planning jurisdiction in the area. The proposed amendments would be considered by these municipalities in accordance with established procedures under the Planning Act of Ontario, providing opportunity for further public review. This approach was the one requested by the affected municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, I have a further statement.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister have copies of the first statement which he read that might be made available to us?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will get them for the member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was completely incomprehensible.

Mr. Lewis: We didn’t understand a word.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s fine. If the member reads it, maybe he will.

Mr. Lewis: No, but really --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We are not being smart; we couldn’t understand it.

Mr. Cassidy: We understand the minister is practising oratory by putting marbles in his mouth.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): That was not called for.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the point of order, I’ll provide the copies.

Mr. Singer: It is all Barney Danson’s fault anyway.

ACCELERATED FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the Throne Speech two weeks ago, the government is determined to ensure that the standard of living and quality of life to which the people of Ontario are accustomed will be maintained.

Last Oct. 18, I announced several new initiatives of this government aimed at increasing the supply of affordable accommodation and which put special emphasis on the development of family rental units. Today I would like to give the House the results of our activities in regard to one of these initiatives, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that at that time I indicated the basic approach of this government was to work with industry and municipalities to substantially increase the supply of rental accommodation. We chose the increased supply route over the rent control route because controls have not worked in other jurisdictions and, in some cases --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister’s programme sure hasn’t worked.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- seemed to have worsened the situation. The initiatives mentioned included: ensuring federal funding for housing in Ontario is fully utilized; introducing the concept of condominium development on leased land; expansion of our role as a direct developer; and inducements to the building industry through low-interest rates to build more family rental accommodation.

What I would like to discuss today, Mr. Speaker, is the accelerated family rental housing programme which is part of the last-mentioned initiative. I am very enthusiastic about the results of our recent public call for proposals under this programme.

Mr. Deans: This is absurd.

Mr. Cassidy: Is this a political speech?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Such developments will combine rent stabilization on 75 per cent of the units with the integration of families on rent geared to income in the remainder. As a result of the call, we have selected eight projects in five municipalities, providing us with 1,749 housing units. Of this group, 437 units will be rented to families on a rent-geared-to-income basis while the remainder will be under a rent stabilization formula.

Under this programme, Ontario Mortgage Corp. will provide loans of 95 per cent of the cost at eight per cent interest over 50 years, ()ME officials will begin direct negotiations on plans and specifications with the proponents before the funding of $44 million is formally committed. The selected submissions include three in Metropolitan Toronto totalling 795 units, one in Brampton totalling 334 units, one in Whitby of 352 units, two in Hamilton totalling 200 units and one in Thunder Bay for 68 units.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the building industry is to be complimented, not only on the extensive nature of its response to out call but on the quality of the submissions. Successful proponents will be required to enter into operating agreements specifying the levels of rents to be charged and the maximum in-going income of the prospective tenants. OMC is applying for approved lender status under the National Housing Act so that the rents on these projects will be further assisted by legislation now before parliament. It will provide funds for rental reduction on the 75 per cent set aside for private rentals.

Rents for these units will be set out in the agreement between the owner and OMC and will be based on the size of the units, the extent of servicing provided, the below-market financing terms offered and the nature of the assistance which will be received under the NHA amendments just mentioned. Calculation of the rentals will provide for a limited return on the borrower’s equity.

As well as receiving rent supplement units from this call, we will be obtaining 25 per cent of all units obtained under the recent and current federal modified limited dividend calls.

We are now looking to the municipal governments, considering the degree of urgency surrounding the need to produce new family rental housing, to help us expedite these dwellings.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing a question further to his first statement. Are we to gather that the 25,000-acre commitment to the North Pickering community has now been reduced so that, in fact, he finds he needs only about 8,000 acres, or certainly less than 10,000? And perhaps as an additional clarification, was the minister provided by his staff with a corrected copy of his statement, as we were? Otherwise, why would he say that technical studies “recognized that agricultural land should be oriented toward Oshawa” when his staff intended him to say “urban land”? What’s going on?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): He doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know what’s going on, that’s quite obvious, but I happen to know what’s going on. I admit there was a mistake in the statement that was handed to me. It was not agricultural, it was urban land.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Doesn’t the minister have enough sense to correct that himself? It was such an obvious error.

Mr. Stokes: He read “agricultural.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The amount of development in the urban complex will be somewhere around 7,000 to 8,000 acres. Does that clarify the matter for the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Deans: The minister doesn’t know what he is doing. No wonder we don’t understand it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, having to do with that clarification: How does the minister think the taxpayers are going to respond to the fulsome statements that came from one of his numerous predecessors some months or years ago now on the requirement for 25,000 acres to be expropriated and bought at tremendous public expense, when he now tells us that he is going to need about a third of that land? He says, “Fine, we’re going to keep it in agriculture.” Why the devil didn’t he let the farmers keep it in agriculture? What is he interfering with it for?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has a copy of the statement and he can interpret it much more correctly than I can, maybe he might look at page two and see what I said in the statement. Maybe he doesn’t understand the fact that we don’t build a city of 70,000 or 90,000 people in two or three years; it takes a long time to do that. If we’re to build a further population in the area it’s going to take 20 years, so what we are doing is planning for the immediate future up to 10 years, and after that we’ll review what is the ultimate best use of the land.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): And we’ll still be around to do it too.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister tell us what will be the ultimate population of the new town, because he has mentioned figures of 200,000 or more and now is only talking of 70,000?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question about a dozen times for the hon. member. It is impossible to say at this time what the ultimate population will be. We are planning for the immediate expansion of the urban area to be around 70,000 to 90,000 population, Now that’s clearly in the statement, even though the member couldn’t understand it as I read it out, but I will give the member a copy so he can read it and then maybe he will understand it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? One more supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: The minister says the two-community concept forms the basis of the plan he will put to the North Pickering Development Corp. Surely he is not attempting to suggest to the Legislature that the North Pickering Development Corp. will amend the plan? They have again, as a government, imposed a plan of 70,000 to 90,000 for a community, on the people of that area with a pretence of public hearings but without adequate input; and secondly, is the government not heading irresistibly for a quarter of a million people since it intends to continue to own the land and considers this just a first phase?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we are not predetermining what the public input will be. We have had all kinds of hearings in the area. We will have hearings, which will be under the Planning Act, when we proceed with the plan. The North Pickering Development Corp. will submit the plan, the same as any other developer or any other municipality would in regard to the views of the people in the area; that is what the statement says.

Mr. Lewis: That is all over. It has been done.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, it isn’t all over.

Mr. Lewis: This is not planning.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The leader of the NDP may say in his opinion the socialists would take everything over.

Mr. Lewis: That is what got this government in trouble with regional government.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The socialists want to take everything over and have no input. We want to make sure there is public input at all times.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: There has never been any planning.

Interjections by hon. members.

SPEECH BY MEMBER FOR ST. DAVID

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the same minister can tell us whether he approved the speech made by his parliamentary assistant (Mrs. Scrivener) and if in fact he agrees with the scurrilous and irresponsible statements she made with regard --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The minister doesn’t have to answer.

Mr. Lewis: No, but he wants to dig himself out.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister were an honourable man he would have her resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister has the opportunity to answer.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): No one can stop her from doing whatever she wants to do.

lnterjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that all the members of this House understand very clearly that my parliamentary assistant and myself discuss all matters, and that I am in agreement with the parliamentary assistant’s statements. As I have said, and I was quoted in the Globe and Mail --

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): The minister will regret that.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Shame.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- it is up to the federal minister, Mr. Danson, to reply very clearly, and not garbled as the official opposition has garbled up most things, and to very clearly indicate to us why he can’t substantiate the amount of funding to Ontario for housing this year --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and why he will not assist us more than he has in the past.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The Premier (Mr. Davis) is on his way out; he is on his way out.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is the distinction between this Premier and John Robarts, he wouldn’t agree with anything like that. The Premier couldn’t carry his political shoes and he knows it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the Premier, then --

Mr. Bullbrook: He was a statesman.

Mr. Lewis: Not in an election year he wasn’t, let me say.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Could the Premier indicate to us if he approves the attitude of his Minister of Housing, which is stating very clearly that it is political influence from Ottawa that is in fact responsible for the problems that we are having and have had in housing in this province, recognizing the serious implications of such an irresponsible statement.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Now just watch him skate around this one.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Well Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition regularly looks to the east to get whatever assistance he can from his colleagues in Ottawa. I don’t know why, because I don’t think they are that much help to him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I always thought the Premier looked to the east.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Heavens above, they ran his great meeting in Windsor for him. The Leader of the Opposition is getting talent from them left, right and centre; he knows it and I know it.

I will only make this observation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Doesn’t the Premier wish he had some support?

Hon. Mr. Davis: When it comes to housing, this government’s policy is very clearly stated.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): This government doesn’t have any.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Our commitment is there. We need additional funding from the federal government and it is inexcusable, in my view, the way they have reduced the amount of their financial involvement in housing here in the Province of Ontario, and I think everybody can draw their conclusions.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Wouldn’t the Premier think then that if he is going to be the leader of a party that was going to campaign on that basis, he should make the statements himself and not relegate them to one of his backbench members -- is he, in fact hiding behind the skirts of the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener)? What happened to fighting Bill? Why does he send this charming lady out to make these scurrilous and irresponsible statements?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t send the charming lady anywhere. She is one of those, unlike those in the members party, who does things on her own initiative and extremely well. I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition, let him make the kind of speeches he wants to make, I’ll make the kind I want to make.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, just for clarity: Is the Premier accepting responsibility for the attitude expressed by the hon. member for St. David --

Mr. Roy: And the words?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- supported by the Minister of Housing, or is he not? Could he make it clear whether he accepts that concept or not?

Mr. Roy: Is he in agreement or not? Just yes or no.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is prepared, as he never is, to accept the points of view --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Answer yes or no.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier is as irresponsible as the rest of them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- expressed by all of his members of caucus, I’d be delighted to hear of it. And I would say here without any question I have total confidence in the capacity of the Minister of Housing and his parliamentary assistant. And if they’re saying --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He won’t last four months. He is going to go the way of the rest of them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that we are not getting sufficient money from Ottawa for housing, that is factually the case and the member knows it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In other words, the Premier refuses to answer.

I have a question that I would like --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It is the first time he has answered in months.

Mr. Cassidy: The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t recognize an answer when he gets it.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary I would like to ask.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Why is everybody putting on the member for Brant?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question?

Mr. Roy: Hang on, Bob, he won’t be back.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): They’re going to make powder puffs and canned ham.

An hon. member: Shame on you, Bill Davis.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: The Minister of Transportation and Communications won’t be back either.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Don’t worry about me, baby.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the Premier when --

An hon. member: Nice to see the minister back. Where has he been?

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask, whatever the federal government has done in not meeting certain programmes or transferring money to others, does the Premier recognize that the government of Ontario between 1970 and 1974 failed to spend $133 million of budgeted Ontario money? And that he wouldn’t need to make that kind of silly political speech if he had applied it to housing in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say this to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker. We have succeeded in this province, unlike some others I know, or other jurisdictions --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In housing? What a laugh!

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in providing a higher level of accommodation for the people of Ontario than he will find in any comparable jurisdiction --

Mr. Stokes: The government didn’t even spend what it had in the first place.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- show me a better one.

An hon. member: Yes, where?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Show him? I have been challenged. Look at BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Some hon. members: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: State your point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: I have absolutely no proof of that statement, but I’m sure of it! I’m sure of it.

Interjections by hon. members.

LEMOINE POINT LAND PURCHASE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) for the last day or two, can the minister report to the House on the status of the acquisition of the property in Kingston township known as Lemoine Point? And can he indicate further as to why the municipal council of Kingston township would have passed a resolution declaring their lack of confidence in the governmental representative on the local conservation authority because of the ham-handed and expensive way these negotiations have been handled?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I’ll do my best not to say anything nasty about the federal government. This matter is about to be resolved in a very short while. The hon. member did make some statement about the expensive manner in which it has been handled. What we are attempting to do is to make sure that whatever is done isn’t going to be too costly for the taxpayers of the province. The matter will be resolved in a very short while; it is well in hand.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question: Since the government has vetoed an attempt by Kingston township to buy this extremely valuable parkland property let’s say -- it’s unique in every way -- at a price of $900,000, can the minister assure us that we are not going to be in a position of paying substantially over $1 million now that he is handling it so judiciously from the centre?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give the member a fair assurance of that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you. That’s interesting. We will see what the government pays for it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

OMA FEE SCHEDULE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health what has happened to the generally excellent relationship between his ministry and the Ontario Medical Association which would have led the president of the association some days ago to say they were no longer going to negotiate with the minister or anybody else on their fee schedule but would enter into one unilaterally which they would proclaim next May 1 and damn the torpedoes or something like that?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): I am just not quite sure, Mr. Speaker. They seem to be suffering from the same disease as the Leader of the Opposition is these days.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the minister mean they don’t like Tories?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Just a little bit of the unvented --

Mr. Lewis: The minister certainly walked into it that time.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I did that. Just a little bit of unvented spleen.

Mr. MacDonald: Why doesn’t the government pass a law ordering them to negotiate?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Miller: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have never had any letter from the Ontario Medical Association confirming the letter signed by the president.

Secondly, I have the assurance of the three members of the Clawson committee that they are not only willing to negotiate with us on a continuing basis for next year’s contract but they now want to do it weekly and on an expanded area of topics. These negotiations are going on and they have told us they have had no instruction to the contrary.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister undertaking some further initiative to re-establish the relationships between that important organization and his department or is he simply going to allow them to maintain this rapidly expanding distance between the two areas?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that makes the assumption that the letter referred to was, in fact, a reflection of the association. I met with that association the day after the letter was dated. At that meeting while we discussed some disaffection or whatever it is with the fact that we wouldn’t voluntarily give them more than the four per cent they agreed to take there was just no indication of hostility at all. I am not inclined to believe, until I am faced with it, that the very good relationships have disintegrated.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Since the OMA is a union we know a little more about it than most. I want to put to the minister, is he going to --

Hon. Mr. Miller: Are they a union?

Mr. Lewis: Sure, they are affiliated. They pay a very hefty check-off, as a matter of fact. Does the minister intend to oblige them to bargain with the government over any increase in the fee schedule since, whatever they have said to him, they have indicated publicly they will do it unilaterally?

Hon. Mr. Miller: As the member knows one must always stand back and try to resolve problems rather than inflame them. I am not particularly interested in any discussion that implies a hypothetical set of conditions. I still find they are negotiating with us. I haven’t had any arguments with the president; I haven’t had any arguments with the executive. We still meet on a relatively friendly basis and I even walk out of the room with my back to them. Therefore I feel relatively secure that we will continue to do so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How does the minister walk out of Tory caucuses?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Does he know what he is negotiating?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, I do. And that we can face next year’s discussions with a spirit of co-operation that no other province in Canada has managed to achieve.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary? The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Yes, to the minister; In view of the fact there are certain public discussions, if not with him, about their disenchantment, and that many of them are preparing to opt out, and his statement was that he would force them back in, what percentage is he prepared to tolerate opting out before he forces them to opt back in?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I made that statement and I don’t back down on it --

Mr. Roy: I am not asking him to.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- because there are eight million people in this province who have a right, and that right is to get medical care without costing them money.

Mr. Roy: Okay, answer my question.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am answering the member’s question. Now, the doctors have a right too, and I honour that right. That right is to opt in or opt out. As long as both parties recognize their rights and both parties have freedom of choice, I will honour it; but the moment the public loses its right, then I will be prompted to action.

Mr. Roy: What percentage?

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park has a final supplementary on this question.

Mr. Shulman: Is there any significance to the fact that at OMA headquarters at 234 St. George St. they have set up a wax figure of the minister, which has a number of pins set in at strategic points?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): The member for High Park ought to know.

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, that’s the boys who want to go into acupuncture. They’re doing very well at it.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): The minister is feeling better?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, I am. I understand the second course is on a live dummy, and the hon. member for High Park is going to be sent.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions from the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Lewis: It might be funny, but it doesn’t solve the problem.

Mr. Singer: Place an amendment then.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

SPENDING CEILINGS IN EDUCATION

Mr. Lewis: I first have a question of the Minister of Education, if I could. Wouldn’t the announcement of the revision of the ceilings have been an appropriate time to further close the gap in the per-pupil expenditure between secondary and primary schools?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that we have raised the figure proportionately, or equally, to $50 for both is helping that situation. As I’ve said many times, we are working toward that end, and I think we’ve made a significant gain this year.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate in theory the percentage changes, but in fact it’s still $515 exactly, as I look at it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Can I just tell the hon. member for Scarborough West something? I don’t know whether he is aware of this, but if he takes the elementary ceiling as a percentage of the secondary ceiling he will see that in 1970 it was 50 per cent; in 1975, with our revised ceilings, it becomes 64.25 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: Right, okay, good. Now, does the minister not recognize, despite the shift upwards, the maintenance of the $515 disparity means the major changes which must take place in our school system at the primary level to reduce the kind of dropout consequence at the secondary level are never going to get a chance to take place until he changes those figures fundamentally?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the member understands the financing of education in this province. Accepting the fact, as this government has done, that more emphasis must be put on the elementary panel -- and we’ve shown tangibly that we are doing this -- there is a limit as to how much that gap can be closed in a year.

Actually, talking about a gap is really a phony sort of thing. The main thing is the allocation of resources to do the job in the elementary panel -- and they have an increase in resources this year. If they can spend all that money -- based on the fact that we’re going to pay 60 per cent of it and the local people are going to pay 40 per cent -- then to be able to do that in one year is a significant gain. I think that the elementary people realize this. If this can be kept up, I think we are making significant progress.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further supplementaries?

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: How can the minister call a narrowing of the gap by a mere $12 a significant gain? How is that a tremendous additional resource to be spent at the elementary level? What the hell is he talking about?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Narrowing the gap is a phony argument. Don’t talk about narrowing the gap.

Mr. Lewis: What does he mean, it’s a phony argument? It’s a real gap.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The real question is how do you realistically help the elementary panel?

Mr. Lewis: The government is starving the elementary schools.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I could suggest to the hon. member that if he was sitting over here he wouldn’t do anything different than what we have done.

Mr. Cassidy: We sure would.

Mr. Lewis: Well, let’s try it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What we have done --

Mr. Roy: We’re more realistic than the leader of the NDP.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Just a minute. Sit down. Let me just tell the members. What we have done this year is we have raised the elementary ceiling by 20.2 per cent, and then we have put on top of that another $80.

Mr. Foulds: How about the grant as opposed to the ceilings?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This means that all of that money is eligible for their rate of grant. I don’t think if the opposition was sitting over here it could do any more in one year.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions from the member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Lewis: The government’s system will fail until it changes the ratios.

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

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: How much does the amount of money that the government has allocated to the elementary schools allow them to lower their pupil-teacher ratios in grades 1, 2 and 3?

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, that of course is up to the local school boards --

Mr. Lewis: To the individual boards. Yes, right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They know the amount of money they have got. They have got to decide where they put their resources.

Mr. Lewis: Since he became minister, he has never thought about the schools in terms of what’s inside them. He thinks about dollars, numbers, buildings.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I might just say that all I think about is how all these things will affect the classroom.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He never thinks about dollars.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can tell the hon. member that the emphasis we are putting on the elementary panel is significant.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Foulds: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order. The last one was final.

Mr. Foulds: What are the pupil-teacher ratios in grades 1, 2 and 3 as opposed to high school?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Health, if I may.

Is the Minister of Health aware that the latest dust readings at the Denison Mines, as a follow-up to the report which he tabled in this House, the readings for early 1975 show that in seven out of 11 areas of the mine the dust levels are significantly in excess of the desirable limits? As a matter of fact, there are readings as high as 465 and 547 in heavy work areas where his ministry says 176 parts per cubic centimetre is the threshold limit value.

When will Health do something to attempt to reduce the clear and continuing hazard to those who work in the mines under these circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of those figures. I can only say I’ve been discussing them and that we will see some positive action very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: The Minister of Natural Resources mentioned something of that kind the other day. Is the Minister of Health planning some kind of statement in advance of the Ham commission which will limit the number of years a man works in the mine or changes the ratio or imposes standards? What does the minister have in mind?

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is not of that type, Mr. Speaker, but I or someone will have some comments on this shortly.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Why doesn’t the minister hand out the report?

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Why has this minister or the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) not released the joint report that their ministries made on this very problem, the problem of health in the industry, which I know this minister has had on his desk for over a week?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the member may have it on his desk; I haven’t got it on mine yet.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, really? It is an interesting document.

Mr. Singer: The Osler report took four months to get tabled.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, I will have the report very shortly, I have been checking on it for the member’s information.

Mr. Lewis: To compare it with Dr. Stewart’s views?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Treasurer? Since I gather his ministry is in day-to-day contact with Ontario Hydro over the capital needs of that corporation between 1975 and 1982, where exactly can Ontario Hydro expect to borrow the latest figure, $24 billion, which is up from $10 billion in September, 1973? What kind of suggestions has the Treasurer made to them about the borrowing market? And, more important, what percentage of that does the Treasurer think should come out of a rate increase as a matter of social policy?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of questions there. Hydro aren’t in touch with us on a day-to-day basis. They present their borrowing plans to us on an annual basis, and of course there are revisions during the course of the year. There are also close consultations when either they or we are going to the market.

The second question, which was how much should come from borrowing and how much from what I would call retained earnings -- but that upsets the OMEA -- or out of their surpluses, is a good question. About 80-20 is their current debt-equity ratio in normal terms. There were studies done by Task Force Hydro which indicated that that should move up somewhat. In fact, Hydro as I recall put a position in front of the Ontario Energy Board which indicated that they thought the present ratio was about right in terms of going to the market and of, in fact, raising their rates. As I recall, the Energy Board I think accepted that decision by and large. But these things will undoubtedly change from time to time. As market conditions become tighter and it’s more difficult to raise money, then undoubtedly the rate structure has to be re-examined from time to time.

Mr. Lewis: Just one supplementary then, because it seems to me -- and perhaps the minister can tell us if we are wrong -- that this should now be a matter of government overall economic policy rather than just Hydro or the OEB. In that context, since the chairman of Ontario Hydro assured several of us in the NDP caucus just yesterday that the projected figures they are using are explored with the minister’s staff frequently and regularly, so that his staff is obviously aware of the $24 billion figure in advance of the public announcement, where does the minister have in mind that money like that is coming from? To what extent will Ontario underwrite it on a year-to-year basis? And since Ontario Hydro is going to the Ontario Energy Board asking for a rate increase to levy money for capital expansion, what is government policy on all of this, since the amounts are so great?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I must say I have noticed in the papers this commendable interest on the part of the leader of the New Democratic Party in the last couple of weeks. He’s finally realized that money doesn’t come out of the air, and he’s been making speeches around the province -- I think the first one was in London, Ont. --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- saying that Hydro needed a staggering amount of money. We’ve been saying that for some considerable time; for years --

Mr. Martel: In the last two elections the Tories have proved that too.

Mr. Lewis: I think we discussed that in the estimates many months ago.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hon. member is a little bit upset theses days because we put some money into Syncrude. He doesn’t like that. He’d just put the whole $2 billion into Syncrude. Money has to be found. There is no question about it.

Mr. Lewis: Tell us where?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is basic economics.

Mr. Lewis: Where? The Arab countries?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He should go back and look at a textbook and read some basic economics.

Mr. Lewis: No kidding. Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It doesn’t grow on trees.

Mr. Lewis: That’s terrific. Wonderful.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And we on this side of the House can’t borrow it from the member for High Park, like they do over there. We have to get it in the market. That’s right.

Mr. Cassidy: We are saying the government should exercise its responsibility.

Mr. Lewis: Where? Where? Where is he going to get it? Now that we have dealt with McKeough’s law of absurdity, let’s answer the question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In 10 years --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Everybody wants to be a Tory.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in my time in the House, this represents an historic milestone -- the NDP are admitting --

Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the issue.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- that there may be some difficulty in raising money in the market.

Mr. Lewis: Will the minister answer the question?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And that is a great step forward.

Mr. Lewis: Where?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Where? A combination of markets; the Canadian market, the American market, perhaps in the Middle East, yes.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps in the Middle East, yes, certainly. Wherever it may be possible to borrow to the best advantage --

Mr. Stokes: Maybe even back to Germany.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- of Ontario Hydro and the people of Ontario, bearing in mind Canada’s exchange problems; wherever it may be possible.

Mr. Lewis: Wherever it can be found?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister commit himself to the $24 billion? Does he commit himself to that figure? Does he?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The $24 billion is not committed. The Ontario Energy Board will recommend --

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- that staging of those projects go before the board and the board determines the timing or make recommendations on the timing --

Mr. Lewis: They have already approved $16 billion?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and then its recommendations and Hydro’s recommendations come forward to government.

Mr. Lewis: Aha!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And before that construction programme is proceeded with --

Mr. Deans: Luckily we will be there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- out of which flows the borrowing and/or raising the rates, government gives approval to those projects. But whether the whole programme will go ahead or whether it will be more, given the rates of inflation, particularly in the capital areas, which we have today, heaven only knows at this moment. I can’t say with great precision that the money will come from the Canadian market or the American market or wherever, but it is very sure that it is not all going to come out of the Canadian market.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is not a bottomless pit.

Mr. Lewis: If it is right, thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If we have got that message across to the member --

Mr. Lewis: That’s twice in one day. It is a good thing they made him Treasurer, with all this interest.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is the man who two weeks ago was saying, “What’s wrong with Syncrude is that the government should do it all.”

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. MacDonald: Right, because they are getting it by give-aways in taxes and gifts.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He’d have us put up $2 billion for one Syncrude plant.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Any further questions? The Minister of Transportation and Communications has an answer to a question.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question that was asked by the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Question time is being wasted.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: It is still being wasted. The minister will continue with his answer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In answer to a question asked by the member for Yorkview, Mr. Speaker, on March 14, as to the time frame of the investigation of the dump truck industry, the office of the dump truck inquiry is now located on the third flood of the Hepburn Block and has been opened and staffed since Feb. 20.

The preliminary work required before public hearings can be held is well in hand and an advertisement setting out the terms of reference and inviting written submissions from the public was put into the local press on March 15. We’re requesting briefs to be submitted by April 10. Inquiries from the industry indicate that this is the minimum time required.

A letter has gone out to some 25 organizations associated with the dump truck industry with the terms of reference and inviting their submissions. In view of the uncertainty of the mails, the letters and the advertisement for the papers have been delivered personally through the facilities of the ministry.

The commission is presently studying the briefs and submissions already made to both provincial and federal governments. The commission is in the process of securing information from other jurisdictions as to how they are dealing with the problems raised by the terms of reference. Tentative plans call for the holding of the first public hearings, commencing April 21.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

LISGAR COLLEGIATE

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education: In a letter to me dated March 6, the minister states that the Lisgar Collegiate building in Ottawa has been designated as a heritage building. Would the minister say when and by whom this designation was made because neither Ontario Heritage Foundation nor Ottawa Heritage has any such information?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think I wrote that letter based on information told to me when I met with the Ottawa board about this project. Perhaps to use “heritage foundation” is the wrong terminology but I understand it had been declared, in whatever the National Capital Commission terminology is, as an historic site that was not to be destroyed in the capital area.

Mr. P. Taylor: Is the minister satisfied that this building will not be destroyed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I guess in the context of what I’ve just said, if the National Capital Commission has decreed that it is to be preserved as an historic building, it will be preserved. Some financial responsibility, I would think, rests on them and the federal government to assist in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

UAW PENSION PROPOSAL

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker. In relation to his responsibility with regard to the Ontario Pension Board, how does he react to the proposal presented this morning by the UAW that there be a pension insurance plan in Ontario to take into account those instances where there is a pension shortfall due to the companies going bankrupt before their employees’ pension funds become fully funded? Is he interested in that proposal at all? Will he institute such an insurance plan or is it too innovative a concept for him to contemplate?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not receive a copy of the UAW brief. I was not present during their presentation and I believe the response to the entire presentation is that all of the proposal be taken under advisement and a response be given to them as quickly as possible. I’ll study it in detail.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Is it a fact that he has sent the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) to Hollywood to try to encourage the movie studio chiefs to come to make films here in Ontario? If so, why wouldn’t he encourage the Canadian film industry, as is done in other provinces -- for instance, Quebec? Isn’t he afraid that, by sending him to Hollywood with his high ego, he might never come back?

Mr. Yakabuski: He saw the member’s act in here and that was enough.

Mr. Roy: He might never come back.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Which of the Simard family owned it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for the Minister of Industry and Tourism when I note before this House how interested the member for Ottawa East is in his whereabouts and what he’s doing -- I think with a degree of envy, as a matter of fact, more than any public interest.

Mr. Roy: I’d love to be in Hollywood with him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I doubt that the member for Ottawa East would love to be in Hollywood with the minister but I have no doubt whatsoever that he would love to be in Hollywood to play to the galleries there as he attempts to do here.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park. Order, please. One supplementary; the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the foreign control of the film distribution industry, is the government willing to consider a quota in order to permit more Canadian films to be required to be shown in Ontario film theatres?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not considering that at the moment. If the hon. member wants me to make any sort of general observation about movies in general, I would be delighted to do so. That would be very simple: I would like to see more Canadian-produced, directed and financed films. I have no reservation in so saying.

Mr. Roy: Why would the Premier send him to Hollywood then? Just bring them over here.

GUELPH REFORMATORY

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Correctional Services: Is the minister aware that Guelph Reformatory has become so overcrowded it had to fill its gymnasium with beds for inmates? And is the minister also aware that as a partial result of this there is some unrest among both the guards and the inmate population because the gymnasium is no longer available and that he may have more serious difficulties there unless he relieves the congestion?

Mr. Martel: He could send some to Burwash.

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that we are using the gymnasium at the present time for a number of inmates -- not because we have a tremendous overload of inmates, but because we are doing some renovations.

Mr. Roy: Because they’re good athletes?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I am not aware it has caused any undue concern to the guards or the inmates. I am aware there was one guard who was a little disturbed and got in touch with the hon. member this morning.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: What has happened to the guard?

Mr. Renwick: He is now an inmate.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

AUTO RUSTPROOFING

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Why has the ministry been so ineffective in dealing with the problem of many new car buyers with respect to undercoating of their vehicles and in particular with the very frustrating case of Mr. Williams of Willowdale and his fight with Grandview Ford, which the ministry seems to have done nothing about?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is fully aware of the fact that the ministry operates as a mediator and at this present time has absolutely no legislative clout.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: When Bill 55 comes into full operation, then the ministry will have legislative authority enabling it to intervene in cases of misrepresentation -- only in the case of misrepresentation. The question of fraudulent or criminal activities, of course, is another matter entirely.

There is also the question of shoddy workmanship which is not a matter for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations at the present time. That’s a matter which can in fact be overseen by our friends in Ottawa. I don’t want to start getting on to that line again, but there is the possibility, there is legislation in Ottawa which enables the Department of -- I think it is called Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to intervene in the cases of shoddy workmanship.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Supplementary?

Mr. Deacon: Why does his ministry pretend that it does look after these car buyers?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there is no pretence on the part of the ministry. The ministry operates as a mediator and in most cases is quite successful in obtaining satisfaction for the consumer, but a mediator cannot impose an arbitrary settlement on anyone.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

DEATHS AT CIP MILL

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): May I ask the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, what action his industrial safety branch is taking considering the tragic deaths of three employees at the CIP mill in Hawkesbury?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that tragedy. I have asked for a report on it and when I have that report I will make known the result of it to the member.

Mr. Samis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has that branch made any recommendations regarding safety measures at the mill?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether we have made any recent recommendations or not. Certainly I don’t think we have made any arising out of this accident. I think there is quite a possibility that our standard safety procedures were not followed in this case, but I shouldn’t even perhaps be saying that at this point. Before I say more, I want to see the report.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

POLICE PROCEDURES

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the acting Solicitor General. Would he tell us what, if anything, his department has done in relation to the report of his honour, Judge Pringle, as a result of his investigation into the Landmark situation and the improper search? Have any directions been given to police forces throughout the province as to how searches might be conducted and as to their procedures in matters of this sort?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that in the course of that inquiry, evidence was tendered by a senior officer, I believe, in the Brantford police force. The commissioner in that inquiry made an expressed recommendation that the system of search as detailed by that officer be one which should be implemented by police forces conducting this type of a search. A directive has gone out from my predecessor to the police forces, directing their attention to that recommendation and the evidence tendered by that particular officer supporting the commissioner’s finding, and suggesting that this should be the procedure that should be followed in this type of a search.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and just a very brief one: that is only one recommendation. If my memory serves me correctly, there were about 20 different ones that his honour made. Has the minister or his predecessor taken action on any of the other recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am further advised, Mr. Speaker, that the Ontario Police Commission has had some discussion with the Police Chiefs’ Association -- I guess that is the name of it -- directing their attention specifically to some of the recommendations. There was one that touched my Ministry of the Attorney General --

Mr. Singer: Yes. There was that one about justices of the peace. Is the minister going to provide them with cabinets?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- that justices of the peace be provided with proper receptacles.

Mr. Singer: Filing cabinets.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Filing cabinets. We’re taking that under advisement.

Mr. Singer: Maybe the Attorney General could get it through the Treasury Board.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Maybe I should set up a task force on filing cabinets that would carry out that recommendation. By and large, the more serious recommendations made by the commissioner in that particular matter have been examined, and I understand the recommendations will be brought to the attention of the proper police forces.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

PROVINCIAL PARK FEES

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. In view of the statements made by senior officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources that there is going to be an increase in provincial park fees, would the provincial secretary assure this chamber that there will be no such increase before the next provincial election?

Mr. Shulman: He’ll guarantee it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, and report back to the Legislature.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He is out of the country.

Mr. MacDonald: Has it been considered as a policy issue?

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, if I might: Would the provincial secretary be prepared to state whether or not there will be a differential in the park fees between Canadian users and non-Canadian users?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, in continuing my presentation in respect to the Speech from the Throne, I might just review for a moment what happened the other day when we began this process.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): We’re listening.

Mr. Young: We had a discussion with certain members of the Conservative rump in respect to the present economic system. I read them a bit of a lecture on how it actually worked, not how they hoped it might be working. Then we went on to the whole matter of the collapse of the so-called free enterprise system, to say that competition has all but disappeared and that today we are in a monopoly situation where combines, cartels, and collusion in prices have taken the place of wide-open competition. The consumer today is more or less at the mercy of this new kind of a setup.

Continuing from that, I want to address myself this afternoon to a specific aspect of tins problem, and that specific is in connection with the whole motor car industry. As you know, Mr. Speaker, for the last 10 years or so I’ve been interested in this whole matter of getting safer vehicles onto our roads and streets. I think almost yearly I have placed in Hansard a blow-by-blow description of the struggle between the consumer and the motor car industry. Today I want to bring us up to date, likely for the last time in this parliament, and put on record one of the developments which is now taking place in --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Is the member planning to retire?

Mr. Young: No, I am not planning to retire. I am simply expecting this parliament to retire before I get a chance to speak on another Throne debate.

But coming back to the subject; a development has taken place which has far-reaching repercussions and may mean a great deal to the consumers in this country, as well as throughout the continent.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, during the past decade there has been a marked improvement in the safety of North American motor cars. Ten years ago there were no safety standards as far as governments were concerned. We accepted without question the kind of vehicles the industry gave us. We accepted, too, the increased deaths and injuries and property damage they brought us on the streets and the highways. We thought of this as the price that we had to pay for progress in transportation.

Then we began to realize that at least part of this carnage and destruction could be prevented if certain fundamental changes were made in vehicle design. We saw that steering columns, for example, were spearing drivers during collisions and that collapsible ones could save a great many lives; padding on dashes an pillars would soften the blow when passengers were thrown against them; safety belts would prevent death and injury for those wearing them; and reinforced doors could help in lateral accidents.

These and other measures to save lives and prevent injury were discussed and proposed to the industry, but it refused to modify design in the interests of safety. Sales appeal and profits were paramount to them.

Finally, governments began to legislate changes in vehicle construction. New York state started it by mandating safety belts. Later, Washington followed suit for the whole nation and Canada tagged along. Collapsible steering wheels, padded interiors, elimination of sharp protrusions inside and out, and other features, were legislated for the general safety.

At every step, Mr. Speaker, the industry fought these changes right into the courts, asserting it had the right to build cars as it saw fit; and that it knew better than governments what was good for the motoring public.

Then, New York state designed a safety car which its engineers claimed would protect its riders from death and serious injury up to 50 mph in collisions and up to 80 miles in rollovers.

Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps remember that the late Sen. Edward Spino of New York was invited to appear before this Legislature to present his plans for the development of a safety car. He came here during March of 1966. Later, the Johnson regime made plans to develop and test a safety car; but the automobile industry was so powerful in the Nixon government that these plans were shelved and the safety car is still a dream.

But in spite of industry and official hostility, Mr. Speaker, progress has been made. Cars are safer than they were. The result is that death and injury ratios per million miles travelled have dropped dramatically. But property damage still soared, and it was all too often property damage occurring at relatively low speeds.

The reason was pretty obvious. While greater safety was being built into cars for the occupants, the bumpers were being designed for quite another purpose. Many cars had no bumpers at all; others had such fragile ones that they offered no protection whatsoever. Still others were built with pointed prows in the middle; sharp, knife-edged protrusions; pointed elbows at the sides; and other devices which guaranteed maximum damage to the other car in case of accidents.

More than that, the bumpers themselves were so fragile that by 1970 15 per cent of all insurance claims were for damage to bumpers alone. The crash parts business of the automobile companies soared, and as it rose so did the price of the crash parts. In fact by 1971, when the new car price index stood at 112, the crash parts index was 133.

Of all insurance payouts, 91 per cent were less than $1,000. These, of course, were for accidents occurring at low speeds and in parking lots. Insurance rates had to rise to meet these costs, and for the most part the insurance industry, rather than the car makers, took the blame.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a public outcry for less lethal bumpers arose. The industry was asked for better design. It responded by better design for itself, more damaging that is, and more profitable in crash parts. Finally Washington, from which Canada takes its standards, proposed tougher bumper standards and called hearings in early April, 1970, on those proposed standards. They were pretty rudimentary and called only for bumpers which would protect safety-related items such as lighting, fuel, exhaust, cooling and latching systems up to a 5 mph hour impact on the front and 2½ mph at the rear. This was to come into effect on the 1973 models. Then by 1974 the 5 mph standard would apply to both the front and the rear, only for safety-related items.

At that hearing in April, 1970, the car makers were at the hearing in full force to fight those standards. Ford insisted that design be left to the industry, that they work it out on their own and without government interference. For a year or so that happened, and they sure did exactly what Ford said.

The next year, with standards still not set, bumpers were the most lethal in the history of the car industry. Then Washington acted and mandated the 5 mph front and 2½ mph rear standards for the 1973 models. Incidentally, Ford did well before the 1973 standards. Damage to the Galaxie, for example, in a 5 mph test into a barrier was $203 for the 1970 model, $341 for the 1971 and $402 for the 1972 model. I’m using round figures throughout this presentation. That’s twice the damage in two years, in spite of the assurance that Ford gave to the 1970 hearing.

The 1973 bumpers did come and they did protect the safety-related items behind them. But they still had the sharp prows, the bumperettes and the side elbows which still damaged the other car, and which were still too damage-prone themselves.

Another standard was then proposed. This was that bumpers should be so designed that no property damage should be done to a car, including the bumpers, up to 5 mph on front and rear impacts, and up to about 3 mph on corner impacts. This was to be determined by the so-called pendulum tests which the department would give.

This property safety standard, meaning no damage to any part of the car in these kinds of collisions, was to come into effect Sept. 1, 1974. But the power of the industry prevailed with the Nixon administration, and it was postponed to September, 1975. This, then, included a necessity for bumpers to be of standard heights, of course, so that they would meet in crash situations.

Mr. Speaker, this requirement again brought the industry out fighting. Using the energy crisis as an excuse, it persuaded the Department of Transportation in Washington that the new bumpers were costing the consumer too much and that the added weight was using too much material and too much gasoline. Strangely enough, the Department of Transportation in Washington fell for that line, co-operating with the industry. It proposed that the present 5 mph safety standard itself be lowered to 2½ and that the proposed property standard protection plan be abandoned altogether. That was the proposal coming from the Department of Transportation in Washington.

Hearings were called on those proposals in the Department of Commerce building in Washington on Feb. 18 and 19 last. These hearings were fascinating. For the first time in history the insurance people fought the automobile industry, and the divisions were sharp and extremely bitter. Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, American Motors and Volkswagen were there supporting the lower standards. The argument in each case was exactly the same. The new bumpers cost the consumer too much, particularly in higher speed crashes when they got smashed up. They were heavy and they used up too much precious raw material; and the extra weight consumed more gas.

Richard Chilcott, vice-president of nationwide Insurance Companies, of Columbus, Ohio, summed up the attitude of the insurance industry as well as of various other groups which were there when he said this. I quote:

“Despite constant prodding over the years, the automotive industry has been sluggish in building efficient and safe vehicles. Instead, it applied its technological knowhow to build bigger automobiles draped with high cost options and glittering ornamentation. The auto industry, long insensitive to vehicle safety, had to be coerced into building vehicles with minimal safety equipment.”

They had to be coerced.

“The auto industry encouraged Americans to waste untold amounts of their resources to fuel super-powered, overpowered cars. That is a sorry record indeed.

“Now, using conservation and economy as a smokescreen, this same industry is asking the consumer to retreat back to the days when a 3 mph accident would cause hundreds of dollars of needless damage and increase the chances of injury.

“It’s long past time to send a message to Detroit that there will be no further retreat. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. joins with the American consumer in the demand for safer cars, for cars that will survive minor love taps without damage.

“Nationwide Mutual says ‘no’ to fragile bumpers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can strike a blow for the American consumer with the absolute rejection of any proposal to water down hard-won bumper standards.”

And that was essentially the message voiced, with powerful documentation, by the whole insurance industry and by representatives of the public who were there.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that while still needing the property damage qualification, the safety standards up to the 5 mph limit have provided new car owners with genuine protection from the wasteful and costly damage incurred by earlier model cars in low-speed crashes.

The six domestic 1972 model cars tested had bumpers which will comply with the proposed 2½ mph bumper standard -- the one that the department, with the connivance of the industry, was proposing. The repair damage averages were this: $256 in the 5 mph front barrier contacts; $240 in the 5 mph rear barrier contacts; and $475 in their front to rear 10 mph contacts -- that is two cars, each travelling 5 mph, coming together.

In contrast, the 1975 models tested showed a remarkable drop in damages. In the 5 mph front barrier contact it was down from $256 to $39 -- that’s 85 per cent down from 1912 to 1975. In the 5 mph rear barrier contact -- down from $240 to $23.65; down 90 per cent. In the front to rear 10 mph contact, it was down from $475 to $242 -- down about 50 per cent from the damage done to the 1972 cars.

The industry, of course, with the connivance of the Department of Transportation in Washington, sought to abandon this rather remarkable gain and plunge us right back to the condition we knew in 1972. It would certainly be extremely profitable for the industry, Mr. Speaker, but rather expensive for the rest of us.

As a matter of fact, 18 of the 1975 models tested so far by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety already meet the proposed 5 mph property standard’s front and rear barrier tests. This is the one which the industry wants to postpone indefinitely. That’s the proposal to build bumpers so that all damage to cars, including the bumpers, be eliminated in barrier tests up to 5 mph, front and rear, and about 3 mph on the corners.

Perhaps it’s understandable why the motor car industry, profit-oriented as it is, is becoming cornered. The sale of crash parts on new cars is dropping dramatically. Data comparisons of insurance claims on 1972 and 1974 models of the same car shows a frequency decrease of 25 per cent. The present bumper safety standards has reduced the replacement of front face bars by 37 per cent; rear face bars by 47 per cent; hoods by 35 per cent; quarter panels by 29 per cent; and fenders by 19 per cent.

The reductions in replacements were all accompanied by significant reductions in repairs to those parts. This replacement cost might be reduced much more except for the fact that most cars still on the road are the older ones with the damage-creating bumpers. As these older cars are relegated to the scrap heap and the new ones continue to come onstream with the present or better safety bumpers, the crash parts industry, which is largely generated by low-speed collisions, will gradually drop in volume and in profitability.

That seems to be worrying the automobile industry and it’s desperately trying to reverse this trend by having those standards dropped, the safety standards of 5 mph down to 2½, and the property standards dropped altogether for some time to come. That’s what it asked, but it’s doing more than that.

As mentioned above, by 1971 crash parts had increased in price three times as fast as car prices. Since then crash part prices have accelerated; last year alone the index soared from 152 to 200, up by a third in one year. No wonder the insurance industry is concerned. With dropping repair costs on the 1973 to 1975 models, insurance rates might well be stabilized at least, if not reduced. And the insurance industry could see this; it’s got a better future. With the prospect of this reduction, of repair costs dropping steadily as the older cars are phased out, insurers could see some light ahead; but the automobile industry is jacking up prices of the crash parts to make up for its dropping sales and is thus forcing the insurance industry to pay more for repair bills.

That’s happening here as well; it’s a matter which should be concerning the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman). If the car industry has its way and we return to the 2½ mph standards, then back we go to the former high cost repair bills for low-speed accidents. With the price of crash parts sky-high now, it would be a new bonanza for the companies and still higher insurance rates would have to meet those damages. And, of course, car owners would pay through the nose. Fortunately, part of that has been short-circuited.

But let’s not fool ourselves that there’s competition for the crash parts business. These parts include fenders, door panels, grilles, bumpers, lights, and other sheet metal parts most commonly damaged in automobile accidents. These are made and sold by the companies concerned. If the owner of a Ford needs a front fender, he can only buy one manufactured by Ford and he must purchase it from a Ford dealer; the same is true of the other companions. Donald F. McHugh, vice-president of State Farm, said this in his presentation to the hearing:

“The degree of freedom from competition which automobile manufacturers have achieved with respect to the production and sale of crash parts in a billion dollar market is, we believe, virtually unmatched in American history.”

This is the insurance industry, a free enterprise industry so-called, talking.

“It creates a climate in which pricing aberations can occur which are enormously costly. Automobile manufacturers have created a unique system which has the result of effectively tying the sale of crash parts to the sale of the automobile. The manufacturers have left automobile owners no choice but to use the manufacturer’s parts in repairing crash damage to their vehicles.”

There are, of course, some parts not in this category, which other companies manufacture and sell. But this does not hold for those parts directly related to a crash involving a car’s front or rear.

With this kind of power, Mr. Speaker, the industry is not only forcing up the prices of crash parts, but now is trying to destroy the hard-won 5 mph safety standard for bumpers; and is still trying to postpone indefinitely the 5 mph property damage standard.

The big argument of the automobile companies, of course, was that the 5 mph bumper standard forces them to use more material adding unnecessary weight to cars. This in turn uses up more precious energy, lugging these heavy bumper assemblies around. All this means, they said, is that the added expense of the bumpers cost society more than the added repair bills that the 2½ mph standard bumpers would generate.

They were thinking in terms, they said, of the consumer and precious material in society. But this just doesn’t add up. It’s true that most North American car makers chose to meet the 5 mph safety standard by using heavy and expensive bumper assemblies. When these are smashed in high speed accidents, they are very costly to replace. That again means, of course, a tidy profit in the crashed car business, but some car makers meet the standard by using lighter assemblies and cheaper material.

In fact, there seems to be no rhyme nor reason either in price or weight of these assemblies. Replacement prices range, among the sub-compacts, from $254 for a Chevrolet Vega to $408 for the Ford Pinto. Among intermediates, it ranges from $424 for the Plymouth Fury to $553 for the Ford Torino. Among full-sized cars, the Chevrolet Impala bumper costs $387 and the Ford LTD $532. For the energy absorber part of the bumper, the replacement parts cost, for the same cars $45, $112, $143, $133, $80 and $133. These are all in round figures of course. It is obvious that prices of bumpers could be reduced substantially if the industry is genuinely, as it says, concerned with consumer cost.

Weights are in exactly the same category. These range from three per cent of a car weight in the Volvo to almost six per cent in the Plymouth Valiant, with the AMC Hornet at four per cent, the Impala at five per cent and the Ford Torino at 5½ per cent.

The industry, backed by the United States Department of Transportation, claims that getting back to the 2½ mph standard could save 100 lb in bumper construction, but the variations in weight of the bumper assemblies in the different cars show that this saving could be achieved by lighter bumper construction, which at the same time would give the five miles-per-hour protection; if the car industry wanted that. There is no doubt that if the manufacturers want to save weight and cost, as they claim, then they can achieve both without in any way sacrificing the performance required by the 5 mph government standard.

William J. Haddon, Jr., speaking at the hearing of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, put it this way:

“Volvo, Opel, Datsun and Toyota are four of the many manufacturers whose lightweight, damage resistant, fuel conserving bumpers for 1975 models show that the spirit of the standard can be practically met, but other cars show choices of heavyweight systems that waste national fuel and metal resources and consumers’ dollars.

“The poor examples set by such 1975 model bumper systems as those of Plymouth Grand Fury, the Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Impala indicate strongly that rather than being weakened the standard should, to the contrary, be strengthened to prevent excessively heavy front and rear bumpers.”

Haddon, of course, pointed to the step that should occur in bumper standards. That is, that instead of dropping the standards we should maintain them and reinforce them. Maximum weights for bumper assemblies could be mandated in terms of percentage weights of the cars concerned. Three to 3½ per cent would seem a logical figure since some cars are already within this range and meeting the safety standards we now have. But if the companies are really concerned to cut weight and save the consumer costs, then there are far more effective ways of doing it than by dropping bumper standards. The Detroit News of Jan. 30, 1975, reported that “General Motors has added between 60 lb and 125 lb of various materials to its 1975 models to reduce interior compartment noise.” A very laudable aim perhaps; but let’s remember that this is at the very time when GM is objecting to the added bumper weights and wanting to get back to the old standards, because it says that the added weight is bad, and yet they are adding weight for other purposes.

Then, most North American cars are capable of 120 mph, according to the speedometers. Yet no car should travel our highways at anything near this speed. Seventy mph is our top speed limit here; 55 in the United States.

This means that the very industry which seems so concerned to save weight and gas when it comes to safety bumpers, is giving us overpowered and overweight engines in our cars. This means that great quantities of metal and gas are being wasted. Significant reductions in weight and fuel consumption could be obtained, along with greater safety, by producing automobiles without such excessive performance and speed capabilities.

This is certainly the direction we are going in the future, Mr. Speaker, to smaller, less powerful cars using less fuel. The Europeans went that way long ago, and so did the Japanese. North American car makers most follow suit or lose out to the imports. This trend will accomplish what the car makers say they want without sacrificing our 5-mph bumper safety standards.

Then, of course, immense savings could be achieved by cutting out the costly and wasteful annual model changes. Some of these are becoming minimal now, but most car makers still cling to the model change as a sales and status gimmick. Again, if the industry is really serious, it can cut consumer costs by several hundred dollars a year -- far more than the elimination of 5 mph bumpers could do -- by cutting out these model changes.

There are rumours of expensive items being eliminated from future cars, items which were once options and which became standard with higher price tags. This, too, can help without sacrificing safety.

Mr. Speaker, the widespread and determined opposition to dropping the 5 mph standard got results. We heard just two days ago that on March 7 the Department of Transportation, following the representations in Washington, quietly dropped its request for lowering the safety standards from 5 mph to 2½ mph. It was not publicized, simply Gazetted, and no one knew about it until just about three or four days ago. A phone call to Washington told me what had happened.

This, of course, was much to the chagrin of the automobile companies. A carefully planned campaign to rectify mile standards was met and defeated for the present at least, but the results of this battle were uncomfortably close. If the whole insurance group had not rallied, along with the other forces determined to keep present standards, then the car makers might well have destroyed the progress made over the past decade.

The industry has demonstrated throughout the years that it is tireless in resisting regulation by government. If experience is any guide, it will find new ways to use the present crisis to cut standards and the fight on behalf of the consumer will go on.

Last Tuesday we learned something further. The announcement was just made in Washington showing the next stage of the battle is already joined. The department, again with the encouragement of the industry, is now proposing that the 5 mph property damage standard be postponed beyond 1977. That’s the standard which says that no damage should be done to the front or rear of a car, including bumpers, at up to 5 mph impacts.

The suggestion now is that this standard not only be postponed and weakened in certain technical aspects, but also that it is not to apply to bumpers and bumper parts until 1980. Many of the bumpers and bumper parts on 1975 cars already meet the standard. And now the proposal is that that be scrapped and sacrificed and they go back to weaker bumpers, that can be damage-prone, until 1980. This is incredible.

A hearing on this recommendation is now set for April 4 in Washington. Again the insurance industry, many of the senators and people in Washington, as well as consumer groups, are rallying again to fight this further retreat.

Since Canada has generally accepted what Washington has decreed in this field, these events again point to a need for Canada to set up its own standards for automobiles. We were in this instance very close to being thrown back into the kind of crash-part exploitation we knew in the early Seventies, along with the needless waste of time and energy which that entailed. This, of course, would have meant higher insurance rates, along with added injury and death.

If we could hold the line here in Canada with or without Washington, and improve our standards regardless of what the United States may do, then the next few years should see insurance costs drop as older cars disappear and newer ones take their place on our highways. It’s almost beyond belief that the automobile industry was able to persuade the Washington Department of Transportation that it should throw away the bumper safety programme so painfully won over the past 10 years and go back to the chaos out of which we’re just emerging.

Fortunately, the opposition at these hearings prevented this, for the moment at least. But this event again underlines the need for this country to move forward independently of the United States in safety and property protection standards in the motor car field. What will come out of the April 4 hearings again will have a tremendous impact on Canadians if we still follow the Washington standards. What I’m saying is we shouldn’t permit this. We should set up our own standards and we should be making our voice heard loudly and clearly.

More than that, it’s almost certain now that this bumper fight in the United States will kill for some time to come the pressure for bumper standards up to 10 mph and beyond. Canada could well take up that fight on behalf of our own people here and mandate still higher standards in the safety and property field. It’s time we had the courage to move on our own, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, my first remark in this debate on the Speech from the Throne is to say what an honour and privilege it is to serve the people of the Beaches-Woodbine riding in this Legislature. My parents were pioneers in Beaches-Woodbine riding and we have always had close ties with the people of this area of east Toronto. It has also been my privilege to serve this area as a trustee of the Toronto Board of Education and as the alderman on the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto councils. As a lifelong resident of eastern Toronto and a member of many local groups and associations, I have been able to keep in close contact with my constituents.

In 1967, the Wardle service centre was established in order that I could keep in close touch with the people of my riding. Many helpful and interesting programmes are conducted at the centre. Many people each week come to see me at this riding office, maintained, Mr. Speaker, at my own expense. People of the riding know that they can always meet me on a personal basis.

Under the proposed recommendations for the Representation Act, 1975, recently tabled in the Legislature, Beaches-Woodbine riding will most likely see some boundary changes. I am pleased to say that the area of Monarch Park, north to the city limits and east of the middle line of Greenwood Ave., will be added to the riding. At this time, I would like to welcome the residents of this particular area to Beaches-Woodbine riding. When I served as trustee and alderman, it was my privilege to represent the people of this area to be added. I look forward to working with them and assisting them in provincial matters.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we in Ontario can look to the future with every hope and confidence. The Progressive Conservative provincial government of Ontario has provided strong leadership and a climate that has resulted in a strong and sound economy for this province. Our progress in Ontario has not come about by chance, but as a result of the good government policies realized under Progressive Conservative rule. Let us not forget that Ontario has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Investor confidence in Ontario today remains strong. The province continues to benefit in its financial transactions abroad from the highest credit rating available.

Last year Ontario’s real economic growth was 3.5 per cent, a figure higher than that achieved by West Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan. Our Progressive Conservative government has done a fine job in fighting inflation and stabilizing our economy. Last autumn the Ontario government received a triple-A rating from the Moody investors’ service, one of the most influential credit-ranking organizations in the world. Ontario is the first foreign government ever to be given a triple-A rating by this firm. This rating means that we have received international recognition for our excellent fiscal management and our ability to stabilize the provincial economy at a time when most governments cannot control their economies.

The Progressive Conservative government of this province acts not just for narrow sectional interests, but for the benefit of all people. We are truly a people’s party.

I should like now to review just some of the many fine programmes which this government has provided for the people of Ontario.

The government has provided commendable programmes for our senior citizens. No longer do senior citizens have to look to their retirement with fear and concern, and Mr. Speaker, I know that you and members of this House remember those days when they did not look forward to their retirement.

Health insurance premiums were abolished in 1972 for Ontario residents 65 years of age or over. The Ontario Housing Corp. administers subsidized housing programmes for senior citizens, 60 years of age and older. Rents are geared to a tenant’s income, and average about $41 per month. There are approximately 18,700 senior citizens apartments under management and a further 4,905 apartments presently under construction. We have five such buddings in Beaches-Woodbine riding, and I was happy to have a part in the acquiring or building of these senior citizen accommodations. I am hoping that we can supply more such housing in this area.

The extended health care programme was introduced in 1972 to enlarge the scope of health insurance services to people requiring care in licensed nursing homes. Bringing nursing homes into the system of health care facilities removed the heavy financial burden from those requiring these services.

There are now more than 400 licensed nursing homes with approximately 23,000 beds in Ontario. Well-qualified nurses and doctors are attached to each home. In Beaches-Woodbine I was glad that this new legislation resulted in the construction of Bestview Lodge, a splendid building on Main St. I am now pressing for another such facility, hopefully in the southern part of the riding.

Ontario’s guaranteed annual income system established a programme of monthly payments to ensure a minimum annual income for our senior citizens. Since its implementation last July the GAINS programme has been increased twice, and currently provides an income of $2,766 for a single person and $5,532 for a married couple.

The Ontario drug benefit plan was implemented on Sept. 1, 1974. Through this plan a great many people on limited budgets, who qualify for GAINS, will receive the essential medication they require free of charge.

The Progressive Conservative government stands by its commitment to an excellent school system for Ontario. The PC principle of equality of education opportunity requires measures to ensure that no one who has the ability is denied access to further education because of inadequate financial means.

The new Ontario Student Loans Plan will further increase provincial help to needy students who require financial assistance for the completion of their education. This Progressive Conservative government initiated the community college system and was responsible for major university expansion. The continuing policy of the government is to see that every education dollar is wisely spent.

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives have always felt close to the needs of Ontario’s younger people. Through innovative programmes, adults and the youth of this province have been given many opportunities to improve their skills and to realize their ambitions.

In dealing with the people of Ontario, Progressive Conservatives reject regimentation in all its forms. We believe that individuals’ freedom of choice should be respected. The freedom of choice and variety of programmes in education testify to this policy.

The PC policy is to provide opportunity to our citizens to improve their quality of life through education. Ontario has one of the most forceful and dynamic programmes for summer employment for students. This year, about 10,000 jobs will be provided for students in Ontario; in addition, the provincial government is urging commerce and industry to provide summer job opportunities for our young people.

I hear from many young people about education and other matters. The opinions of young people are respected by the Progressive Party. Surely these young people deserve to be heard as plans being made now will certainly affect them in the future.

I know that the people of Beaches-Woodbine and Ontario residents generally have welcomed the plans of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation to establish a provincial lottery. This lottery will make available $40 million to $50 million a year to support programmes for physical fitness, recreation, sports and culture throughout Ontario. The long-established grants programmes to assist amateur sport organizations, particularly in funding, coaching and administrative functions, will continue. The huge sums to become available from the lottery will enable the province to extend these efforts tremendously.

The bold and dynamic Election Finances Reform Act was introduced in the Legislature. Ontario will be the first in Canada to provide for the effective disclosure of political contributions. As a result, Ontario will have, in terms of this issue and related matters, the most open political system in the country.

The Progressive Conservative government of this province is ever mindful of the problems faced by municipal taxpayers and those indirectly paying municipal taxes through apartment rents and on other accommodation. I believe that not enough recognition is given to those who have worked hard, brought up their families and now pay heavy taxation as they try to maintain their homes. In addition, they’re often called upon to support welfare and other programmes from which they do not benefit directly.

In response to this situation, the Progressive Conservative government has again instituted the Ontario tax credit system. This year, $375 million will be provided to offset the general burden of municipal taxation. This programme has had the effect of stabilizing municipal taxation. A special pension tax credit is also available to them.

The Progressive Conservative government is constantly amending existing legislation and introducing new measures to meet the demands of a growing and more discerning consumer populace. The new Consumer Credit Reporting Act protects Ontario residents from damaging personal information reports and gives Ontario the most progressive legislation on personal information in Canada.

The government also introduced legislation to ban referral selling practices and to regulate pyramid sales methods. The new Business Practices Act breaks new ground in the protection of Ontario consumers against deceptive and unfair practices. Major amendments to the Condominium Act have been introduced to help improve conditions for condominium residents. A uniform building code is planned, as is legislation on warranties and guarantees.

Mr. Speaker, workers in Ontario are protected by the Employment Standards Act. Among other things, the Act sets standards for working hours, minimum wages, overtime pay, pay for holidays worked, vacations with pay, and equal pay for equal work. The minimum wages in Ontario were raised last October and will rise again on May 1. All employees received four statutory holidays with pay in 1974, and this will be expanded this year to seven to include New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving Day and Queen Victoria Day.

The Progressive Conservative government is concerned about preventing environmental problems before they arise and is forging a new tool for this job, a system of environmental impact assessment to predetermine all the environmental implications of a proposed development. Such an assessment will be mandatory before undertaking any large government projects. This procedure will permit the fullest public scrutiny and discussion of major projects.

The wide range of policies to protect Ontario’s water resources ensures a plentiful supply of clean water, which our residents need and enjoy. An experimental waste reclamation plant is being constructed to serve as a solid waste research laboratory where ideas and methods of reclamation and recycling can be devised and tested. Since 1968, the sulphur dioxide level in Toronto has been reduced by 60 per cent and levels of particulate by 39 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the farm community of this province is becoming of increasing importance to the life of our people.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Starting to realize that, is he?

Mr. Wardle: The total consumption of food per day in Metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Speaker, is 7.2 million pounds. Included in this figure for one day are: 1,200 head of cattle, 3,200 pigs, 80,000 chickens, 140,000 dozen eggs, 23 car loads of fresh fruit and vegetables and 22 car loads of potatoes. It takes almost 250,000 cows to produce the 231,000 gallons of fresh milk consumed here in one day.

We must encourage our farmers to increase their production in order that urban dwellers will continue to be supplied with adequate and nourishing food.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): While taking more agricultural land out of production.

Mr. Wardle: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we also realize that we need this production, not only for people in this province, in this country, but for the starving millions throughout the world. So we must look to our farmers here in Ontario for increased production.

But, Mr. Speaker, unlike other workers the income of the farmer is uncertain. He is dependant on good weather, adequate labour and fair prices. Why should urban dwellers expect the farmer to produce food at less than cost? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there should be a partnership of understanding between the farmer and consumer.

I think, Mr. Speaker, there is a real challenge to this government to make that partnership a real one when we have the future of the people of this province in mind.

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Heritage Foundation was established by the Progressive Conservative government to care for historic and architectural landmarks of Ontario. It is carrying out its duties with sincerity and zeal. One of the foundation’s most effective programmes is the provision of professional preservation advice and information to a wide variety of Ontario organizations and individuals.

Mr. Speaker, as Ontario residents see the approaching American commemoration of the revolution against the Crown, we should be mindful of the contrasts in our historical development. Our democracy was not born in revolution but in peaceful evolution. Ontario developed on a peaceful and sound foundation. We owe a great debt to the United Empire Loyalists who were the founders of Ontario.

Our young people today, with their sense of idealism, easily identify with the United Empire Loyalists who came to Ontario as a result of high ideals. More emphasis needs to be placed in our schools on the great historical heritage of the loyalist people. These loyalists were law-abiding people who were resident in the American colonies at the time of the revolution. These people were not only of British descent but also included those of German, Dutch, Indian and other backgrounds. They came from all walks of life; professional people, tradesmen, merchants and farmers were all included in their ranks.

At the time of the revolution they wished to remain loyal to the Crown and its rightful and legitimate government in each of the colonies. As a result of their desire for peaceful change, they were harassed and persecuted and deprived of all their property by the revolutionary government. No compensation was ever made to the loyalists. Their loyalty to the rule of law under the Crown resulted in the loss of nearly all their possessions.

In their desire to live under the protection of the Crown and its great heritage of freedom, they sought a new and better country. Many loyalists found this new land in Ontario. While most of the loyalists who founded the Maritime provinces travelled by sea, the loyalists who came to Ontario travelled overland, enduring many hardships en route. I should like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that amongst those loyalists who came here was that great Indian Chief Joseph Brant, whose contribution to the early history of this province will always be remembered.

The first parliament of this province was opened in 1792 at Niagara-on-the-Lake by Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe. During the War of 1812 the loyalists flocked to the colours and fought bravely to repel the American troops who sought once again to destroy the loyalists new-found freedom. By their hard work in all fields of endeavour, the loyalists laid the foundations for the prosperity that we enjoy today. These United Empire Loyalists are remembered today in the official motto of Ontario: “Ut incepit fidelis sic permanet” -- “Loyal in the beginning, so she remains.”

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Ontario will be looking forward with great anticipation to the visit this April to Ontario and the Northwest Territories of His Royal Highness Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. I am most impressed by the large numbers of our young people who want to learn more about our constitutional monarchy and its present and future role in our parliamentary system. This interest has been specially sparked by the successful visits to Ontario over the past two years of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, and Princess Anne. Our royal family was greeted with great enthusiasm on all of these occasions by Canadians of all ethnic backgrounds.

Mr. Speaker, we must not forget the constitutional monarchy is respected not only by those of British and French descent, but by people who have come here from all parts of the world. Many of the critics of the monarchy forget that most of the European immigrants to Canada have come from nations with a monarchal tradition. When immigrants chose Canada as their future home, they knew of our monarchal tradition and willingly swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors. Immigrants to Canada, especially those who have fled from tyranny and oppression, feel safe and secure in Canada where the rule of law under the Crown prevails.

A distinguished former Prime Minister, the late Rt. Hon. Louis St. Laurent, on several occasions emphasized that constitutional monarchy was the most superior form of government and provided the surest guarantee of our freedom. The Queen of Canada is a more democratic head of state than a president because she represents all Canadians. A president would owe his selection to a political faction and this would divide him from many of his countrymen and make his claim to represent all Canadians less convincing. Frequent selections of presidents would interrupt the continuity necessary for an effective head of state. The Queen and her heir have been trained from birth for one profession -- that of discharging the duties of head of state. Therefore, they are the Canadians most eligible to continue in this role.

The Queen is one of the three component parts of our parliament. Royal assent is the final stage of parliamentary enactments; the Queen signs them into law on behalf of the whole country. The government of Canada is vested in the Queen and she provides the framework for the orderly changing of the elected administrators of her government. Safeguards of the Canadian constitution are centred on the Crown. The Queen’s right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn provide a check on prime ministerial power. The Crown’s existence in Canada ensures that the rule of law is maintained. We Canadians are a practical people. We want to keep our inheritance.

How fortunate we are to have as our sovereign a most gracious lady who, by her example, has endorsed high standards and has encouraged the worthwhile traditions so many of which vitally reflect the better aspects of civilized behaviour and living. Her Majesty has carried out her royal duties with dignity and zeal and has truly carried out her promise to her people made in 1953 that, to their service, she would give her heart and soul every day of her life.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to end with these few words: How proud we are to be Canadians and to live in Ontario, this great province of opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have a few brief remarks to make to complement our contribution to the answer to this Speech from the Throne.

I would like to make a few comments to you, Mr. Speaker, vary personally. I find that in your attempt to regiment the order of the House, you are making a great effort to be fair to all members on both sides of the House. I see in you a zeal and a dedication in attempting to enhance not only the role of the Speaker but the role of the Legislature as well. Mr. Speaker, if I might be just a bit presumptuous and say this to you: In my opinion, from here until the next provincial election, things are going to get hot and heavy in this place. We’ve seen it, Mr. Speaker, on various days in this Legislature with accusations being thrown back and forth and it’s going to take all of your efforts --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): We hope the Speaker is a law and order man.

Mr. Roy: -- to be able to control the work and the decorum of this place. If I may make one suggestion, Mr. Speaker, it is that it seems to us that when questions are asked from this side of the House, not only are they sometimes not answered but the way they are answered, in our opinion, is an abuse of the privileges of the House. Most often the statements, Mr. Speaker, and the answers should not be tolerated. They are, in fact, statements that are made by ministers.

I make comment today on the statement made by the Treasurer of the province (Mr. McKeough), who stayed on his feet for some five or seven minutes, not really answering the question, but making a statement. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect -- and I appreciate that I have not been around here very long --

Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): An overnight guest.

Mr. Roy: -- and it might well be presumptuous on my part, but it’s going to be exceedingly difficult to control all members of the House if there is a group of individuals in this House who consistently abuse the privileges of the House. They must be controlled as well. I say to the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), who is leaving, he is not one of them. I have great --

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): He’s a good man.

Mr. Roy: -- respect for him and he’s not one of them.

Mr. P. Taylor: But he should stay and listen to the Health critic.

Mr. Roy: I will have some things to say about his ministry by the way --

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Nice things?

Mr. Roy: -- about the Hawkesbury hospital, in a short while.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, I know it is presumptuous, but I say to you in all sincerity it is going to be difficult to have control in this place if one standard is applied to the opposition members and one standard applied to the ministers of the government and the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself. I just point this out to you, Mr. Speaker, and I do it with the greatest of respect.

I have no difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the motion presented by my leader. What can we say about the Throne Speech that has not already been said by both leaders -- my leader and the leader of the NDP? But I do find it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that since our convention in Windsor we have consistently been accused of not having any policy. The distinction, you see, has not been made; on every bill, on every issue that’s discussed in this House, we have consistently approached it by presenting alternative policies. In fact, on some major pieces of legislation we have saved their skin on the other side there.

Mr. J. F. Bullbrook (Sarnia): That’s right.

Mr. Roy: Their land Speculation Tax Act is one of them which would have been an absolute disaster had they presented it in the form in which originally it was presented to the House. It was the work of various members of this party and of the party to my left who assisted in making this legislation workable -- if it is now at all workable.

I say to the members opposite, they have accused us of not having policy as contrasted to not having a political platform for the election. A distinction must be made, Mr. Speaker. We have consistently put forward policies, but our platform for the election will be presented on our terms when the election is called.

I find it ironic that the people on the other side should accuse us of this when in fact they do the same thing. They have presented a Throne Speech which is devoid of all policy -- well, they have adopted one policy, the ombudsperson, and that they have stolen from us. They have taken that policy from us. So not only are they prepared to steal our policies, Mr. Speaker -- not only are these people prepared to do that, but they are stealing our strategy, in fact.

An hon. member: Come on! Get on with it!

Mr. J. Lane (Algoma-Manitoulin): The Liberals have nothing to steal.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): They have nothing to offer.

Mr. Roy: You know, Mr. Speaker, it’s ironic, for instance, that they are criticizing the federal Liberals, when at the same time they are looking to see what strategy to use to win in 1974 --

An hon. member: He has the wrong year.

Mr. Roy: -- and you know, it’s cynical, Mr. Speaker, when you see minister after minister, day in and day out, present a new bill, present a new policy. You wonder, Mr. Speaker.

I look at the Premier sitting there today, and he must be asking himself, “Why have I lost my credibility? What is happening to us?” The people of this province are getting very cynical about what the government is attempting to do in a political framework.

This leads me, Mr. Speaker, to look at the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), and what she had to say yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and you know, this is ironic. I have had occasion to watch the member for St. David. I can recall when she came into the House here in 1971 with many of us rookies; you could see her jockeying for position. The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) was a new minister as well, and you could see at that time, Mr. Speaker, the jockeying for position. I can still see her. Every second day she was up on her feet, asking what we used to call “pat” questions, to the annoyance of members of her own caucus at that time.

She was jockeying for position. She was asking all sorts of intelligent questions like, “What happened to the rock outside?” and, “Who is doing this?” and, “Who is doing that?” and the minister would always have the pat answer. She, in fact, I suppose made a relentless effort to get into the cabinet, and she kept asking these questions. The Provincial Secretary for Social Development, was a quiet, gracious lady and, whoops, she’s the one who gets into cabinet. And well she should; I applaud the Premier’s choice there.

But then the second approach taken by the hon. member for St. David was to attack the press. Do members recall that whole series of attacks she made on the press? The Globe and Mail and all these people were “unfair;” they were “attacking us.” In fact, in her speech of yesterday she again attacked the Globe and Mail.

Now she’s got a third attack, and we can sort of see her strategy. She’s somewhat the barometer of that party over there. The strategy is, when in doubt blame the feds. Look to the feds, let’s blame them. It’s a dangerous strategy they have there, because the feds did pretty good in 1974. They were the last ones to go to the people and by the look of the polls the Liberals aren’t all that unpopular across this province. But in any event, that is the strategy.

Let’s look at some of the things she had to say in this famous speech of hers. This is not any speech, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it’s got 22 pages. This was premeditated, if one was to talk about an offence or a crime. It is offensive, there’s no doubt about that, my colleague says. There are 22 pages of it, and what is the title? “The Introduction of Dirty Tricks Into Canadian Politics?” Can anyone imagine 22 pages of this? Somebody’s been thinking about this, because we know the intellectual capacity of the hon. member for St. David. We know that 22 pages is far in excess of her capacity. In any event we’ve got 22 pages of this, Mr. Speaker, “The Introduction of Dirty Tricks Into Canadian Politics?”

First of all, the first part of the speech talks about the great policies of this government in relation to housing. Nowhere in the speech is there any mention, for instance, that their objective was 100,000 houses last year and only 85,000 were built. Nowhere is there any mention in this speech, Mr. Speaker, that over $100 million that the government allocated for housing in the last two years was not in fact spent.

But she criticizes; what really gets her dander up is the fact that the federal government has cut part of the budget, from $78 million to $58 million. She’s talking about $28 million. Look at her strategy in this speech. On page 10 she says:

“But the federal and provincial Liberals do differ.”

That’s not the headline that we read yesterday, that the provincial and federal Liberals differ.

“The federal Liberals have already demonstrated their political reaction, as I shall describe in a few moments.”

And does she ever.

“The Ontario Liberal answer to the housing shortage is to scrap the much admired Ontario Housing Corp.”

The much admired Ontario Housing Corp.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex Kent): Admired by whom?

Mr. Roy: As a matter of an objective assessment or judgement, can we blame the feds in sort of hanging on to their wallets the way the Ontario Housing Corp. has been spending money across this province? We’ve seen some of the investments that have been defended by the Minister of Housing, and every second day he would come up with a different answer. In any event, that is what she talks about.

Then she goes on, Mr. Speaker -- I go to page 19; this was a long speech -- and at page 19 she says: “Sadly, we are all familiar with the Watergate mess in the United States.” See the strategy? This party, the party in power, has been attacked consistently, Mr. Speaker, on the question of scandals, of questionable deals and this type of thing. We won’t mention them now; the people out there are not cynical for no reason at all. But in any event the approach is this, when in doubt or when you’re being attacked, go on the offensive. And that’s what they’re doing. First of all they relate Watergate and the federal Liberals, and it goes on:

“Part of the investigation into the Watergate uncovered what has become known as ‘dirty tricks,’ a theory which says no gutter is too deep, principles so firm or morals so high as to interfere with the destruction of an opponent. It is a sick, sick attitude. I think we may have in our country, right here in Ontario, a Canadian ‘dirty tricks’ theory now in the making, and it is mostly readily discernible in the field of housing.”

Then she goes on to say:

“To use federal power and the federal budget for this purpose” and the purpose, of course, is to see the election of the member for Brant as Premier in this province “in my view is cheap and disgusting, a dirty trick.”

She keeps repeating the words “dirty trick.”

“Worst of all is the exploitation of families on low incomes who are in desperate need of housing. Manipulating them in such a rotten political crap game means digging a gutter so deep that it will destroy political morality all across this nation for generations to come.”

Mr. Bullbrook: I think Haldeman wrote that speech.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. Or the former Attorney General of the United States, Mitchell.

Mr. Bullbrook: Remember Haldeman used to talk that way? I can remember Haldeman saying terrible things. The press are after the Tories.

Mr. Roy: Can anyone in his right mind honestly believe this sort of dirty trick? It is really pathetic.

Mr. G. Nixon: Get to the point. The member has their attention.

Mr. Roy: I can see she is frustrated. It is obvious she is frustrated every day she sits in the House. She has been frustrated since 1971.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): She is frustrated by Ottawa.

Mr. Bullbrook: In the speech she says she is frustrated -- and my colleague is prepared to assist.

Mr. Roy: Well, no. I am not prepared to go that far, Mr. Speaker. There are limits to what I will do to assist a fellow member.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Even the member’s own colleagues can’t stand it.

Mr. G. Nixon: They’re all leaving him. Where are his colleagues going?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can you believe that this speech received the approval of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) and the silence of the Premier? In fact, the Premier acquiesced in this sort of thing.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Excellent speech.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what a Leslie Frost or a John Robarts would have done about something like this? He would have had her on his knee and spanked her for doing something like that. Consider Robarts, whose reputation as a statesman went beyond the bounds of this province. The man was popular in Quebec and in other provinces. Can you imagine him acquiescing in something like this?

Mr. Speaker, do you want further evidence? What further evidence do we need of how far the Tories have sunk and what they are prepared to do to cling to power? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I think it is highly irresponsible.

The only solution for the member for St. David, I think, is to get the Minister of Health to make a commitment to the House that he will pay for the OHIP coverage of her treatment on the member for Nipissing’s (Mr. R. S. Smith) couch by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta). That’s the only solution I can see. How many treatments it would take, I don’t know, but I think what she needs is a commitment from all parties that we are going to assist her with her problems.

Mr. McIlveen: Does the member for Ottawa East need a doctor?

Mr. Maeck: Why is he spending so much time on this matter?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I want to get into another aspect. Having said that, I think I have probably wasted too much time on the member for St. David.

Mr. Kennedy: Is the member for Ottawa East going to waste some more time now?

Mr. Roy: What I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is another problem that extends across this province. It brings to mind that the problem that I intend to discuss at this time is certainly not limited to this province.

The Globe and Mail of last Saturday, I think it was, reported:

“A confidential investigation made last year for the Quebec Order of Engineers shows that all major provincial government contracts awarded to consulting engineers in Quebec are done on the basis of political favouritism.

“The report of five investigators also says that the Quebec government has special advisers working for the cabinet and the Premier, Robert Bourassa, who chooses consulting engineers from politically acceptable lists prepared for that.”

That is what appeared in the Globe, and it goes on to say some of the things that are going on.

I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that on the basis of that, Quebec is not leading Ontario at all; Ontario is holding its own when it comes to politically acceptable lists. I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a situation that has been brought to my attention involving architects in this province.

What happened was that I got a call one day from a firm of architects by the name of St. Denis-Thibeault. These people have an office in Ottawa, and in fact they are possibly one of the few firms of Franco-Ontarian architects practising in eastern Ontario. They have experience in relation to the building of schools and hospitals; in fact, they have been working on some additions and some renovations on the Montfort hospital and are competent architects and are known to be competent across eastern Ontario.

In any event, the board for the hospital in Hawkesbury -- they are going to build a new hospital in Hawkesbury -- was interested in enlisting the services of this firm of architects because of their experience and because of the fact they had been working on the Montfort hospital. Unfortunately, they were advised or the board received a list of architects from the Ontario government and on this list it was suggested that one of the architects on this list should be the one chosen to do the work in relation to the building of this hospital. They called me and said, “We’re not on the list and we’re told that if we’re not on the list there’s no way we could possibly get the job. The hospital board has said to us there is no way we’re going to get the job.”

I called up the Minister of Health’s office and spoke to one of his assistants. I related the situation to him and he told me, “I’m going to check into that but I don’t think that’s the situation.”

He called me back a short time later and said, “No, this list is only a sort of guideline. They can pick anybody who is on the list but they are not limited to the people or the architects who are on the list. They can pick some other architect if they find him desirable and he’s competent.”

That’s not the way boards -- school boards or hospital boards -- have been conditioned across this province and there was just no way that the board was going to pick any architect not on that list. In fact, the nuns involved in the operation of the hospital would have nothing to do with that, They said, “It’s always been the tradition and it’s known across this province that we want to follow the directives of the government. We want to pick an architect who is, in fact, on that list.” In fact, the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) said to them, “You’re going to have trouble getting your money from the government. You’re going to have trouble getting co-operation if you don’t pick someone who is on that list.”

It’s deemed that that’s the way we do business in Ontario. One has to be on a list.

I said to this firm: “Why don’t you talk to the member for that area, the member for Prescott and Russell, and see if you can get on the list because you’re competent. There’s no reason you shouldn’t be on the list. In fact, there are probably no Franco-Ontarians even on this list. There are very few people from eastern Ontario on it.” Most of the architects on that list were, in fact, from Toronto and other areas of the province.

They called up the member and attempted to get on the list. He said, “Sure, I’ll get you on the list. There will be no problem about getting you on the list and then you’ll have a fair chance to be considered, at least, for the construction of this hospital.”

He was faced with an embarrassing question. In the conversation the member said, “I can get you on the list.” He was embarrassed even to ask the question but he said, “I’ve got to ask you this. Have you made a contribution to the party?”

Mr. P. Taylor: Shame.

Mr. Stokes: Well, really?

Mr. Roy: It was obvious to Mr. Thibault, to whom I spoke, that the member for Prescott and Russell was very ill at ease at asking this type of question and that he should be thrown into a situation where he has to ask someone, “Have you made a contribution to the party?” The architects said, “No, we have not made a contribution to the party. In fact, we don’t contribute to any party whether in Quebec to the Liberals or in Ontario to the Tories. The member said, “Well, there is going to be a problem about getting on that list if you didn’t make a contribution.”

So they’re not on the list and they will not get on that list, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Health last week pointing this situation out to him. I bring to the attention of the members and the House that business is still done this way. There is no tendering process in Ontario to my knowledge when it involves architects or when it involves, in fact, consulting engineers or people of this nature. At the federal level, I’m told that in Ottawa the supply and services department calls for tenders from consulting engineers, unlike Quebec where no tenders are called, but both governments use special lists as to who should get the work.

I find it strange, Mr. Speaker, that in 1975 in this province, a competent firm of architects which has experience in the field of the construction of hospitals, a firm from eastern Ontario, a firm that is a French-Canadian firm, a Franco-Ontarian firm, should be denied even the right to compete by not being put on the list.

Embarrassingly, as the member for Prescott and Russell said to them, the reason for the denial is that they have made no contribution to the Conservative Party of Ontario. I find it sad that this situation should exist. I would say to the Minister of Health, whom I consider to be a fair and possibly a competent minister, if one compares him with some of his predecessors, that practice should stop, and through the tendering process that has been established since 1971 for buildings and so on, people should be given a fair opportunity. Not only are we denying eastern Ontario professionals the right to compete for institutions and buildings in their own area, but we are denying people for the simple reason that they have not made a political contribution to a political party.

Another problem I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is a question of purchases by Ontario Housing in the Carlsbad area. I’ve had a question on the order paper now for quite some time. I suppose it has been on the order paper now for some five or six months. The question appeared to me very simple. It was an inquiry of the ministry stating:

“Could a list be provided of all land purchased by Ontario Housing Corp. since 1968? When was the land purchased? Who was the vendor? What was the purchase price paid?”

That’s not that complicated when you consider that there are some 70,000 civil servants in this province. You would think that after six months maybe I could get an answer to this, Mr. Speaker.

While I’m on that topic, why does it take so long to get an answer when one puts questions on the order paper? Some of these answers shouldn’t take that long. For instance, another one of my questions was:

“Since Oct. 21, 1971, have any private members of the Progressive Conservative caucus been sent outside of Canada on behalf of any ministry or agency? If so, who are the members, what was the nature of their mission and what has been the total cost of these projects?”

That’s simple enough. It seems to me that that question has been on the order paper for some five months. I should have received an answer.

I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because in the federal House there has been some criticism that answers on the order paper don’t receive attention or replies quickly enough. In the federal House, there are thousands of questions on the order paper. I’m told that the member for Leeds alone put in some 1,500 questions in a period of a couple of years in the federal House. The workload is much greater. On this order paper seldom do we have more than 10 or 15 questions, and they sit there for months on end. There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, why we shouldn’t get any answers to these questions and get answers promptly.

Mr. Stokes: There is the same trouble in Ottawa. Ask John Reid.

Mr. Roy: Yes. John Reid did make a comment about that and he got results. This is why I bring it to the attention of this House. As I pointed out, and I’m pointing it out to my colleague, in Ottawa they have thousands of questions on the order paper, where here we have 10 or 15. You can see some time taken if you are trying to answer thousands of questions, Mr. Speaker, but not when there are so few. I suppose Mr. Reid who raised the matter in Ottawa was right, and he did get some results there. I would hope that this be brought to the attention of various ministries so that we might get some answers to our questions. In any event, I had one question here about Ontario Housing and the purchases it has been making.

I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, what I consider to be a problem and what I consider to be an unacceptable practice going on by real estate firms in this province. Ontario Housing bought some 5,000 acres outside of Ottawa called Carlsbad Springs. The federal government then expropriated some 4,000 acres, so there’s a huge track of land purchase by Ontario Housing and by the NCC or the federal government.

In the purchases made by Ontario housing, they got a firm, A. E. LePage Ltd., to act on their behalf. The first criticism is why would they not get an eastern Ontario real estate firm to make the purchases for them. Why does it always have to be the biggies coming from Toronto making purchases in eastern Ontario? They get LePage to act on their behalf and they have a fellow by the name of P. H. McKeown in trust, and he’s called a purchaser.

As is said on the bottom of the offer here, “It is understood and agreed P. H. McKeown who is a licensed broker with A. E. LePage Ltd., is acting as a nominee only for an unidentified purchaser and has no personal interest in this transaction.” In other words, it is clear that McKeown, an agent of LePage, is acting on behalf of a nominee. And in this case, he happened to be acting on behalf of the Ontario government or the Ontario Housing Corp.

In any event, McKeown is acting on their behalf in trust, and then the vendors of the property have LePage Ltd., who say they are acting as agents for the vendor. How can an agent be the agent of both parties? McKeown, who is an employee of LePage, is acting as an agent on behalf of the purchaser, which is Ontario Housing; and at the same time, LePage, is acting as an agent on behalf of the vendor.

Mr. Speaker, I see that as an unreasonable and intolerable conflict as far as real estate transactions are concerned. It seems to me to make common sense that if you are an agent, you should be agent for one person. If you are protecting the interests of a person, how can you say in all candour and in all fairness that you are protecting your client, when you are in fact the agent of the other individual? Whose interests are you protecting at this stage? That’s how the purchases went on in Carlsbad Springs. LePage was acting as agent, in fact, for the purchaser and for the vendor.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not illegal?

Mr. Roy: Well, I’m not sure that it is. I think it is still legal in this province. If it is, I feel that it should be stopped. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely intolerable that one can say that there is not a conflict.

Mr. Stokes: It is certainly unethical.

Mr. Roy: It certainly leads itself to people being unethical, if you are acting as agent on behalf of purchaser or vendor. In this case it appears that he was being paid by both; surely McKeown was being paid by the Ontario Housing for acting as agent on their behalf. LePage then turns around and charges a commission of five per cent to the vendor in this particular case.

On this particular transaction I have before me -- I think the total transaction was something like $55,000 -- I have here a copy of a cheque that was sent to A. E. LePage for $2,750. That was the commission they got from the vendor.

Meanwhile, McKeown, who was acting on behalf of Ontario Housing, had written a letter to the minister dated March 10 to find out how much he got, because it looked as though LePage had a real good deal going there. Their agent was being paid by the Ontario government; in the meantime, LePage was being paid by the vendor.

Now, some of the vendors objected to this, Mr. Speaker. They refused to pay the commission. And nobody bothered them any further. But the people who brought this matter to my attention were concerned. These people are farming; they don’t know. They get a letter from the lawyer saying: “Send me the five per cent commission.” So, diligently they send in $2,750 to A. E. LePage Ltd.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this type of approach -- considering that they are acting on behalf of a government agency -- leads itself to an intolerable conflict of interest. It should not be tolerated in this province.

If you are an agent, Mr. Speaker, you should be acting as agent on behalf of one person and not acting on behalf of two parties, who may well have conflicting interests. I would think that anybody in business, or anything else, would see that a vendor and a purchaser might well have conflicting interests.

The vendor wants to see that he gets as much money as possible for his property, and the purchaser wants to get it as cheaply as possible. How can one person, Mr. Speaker, act adequately, sensibly and fairly on behalf of both parties? And besides, he gets paid by both. If there should be a conflict later on, should there be court action, A. E. LePage Ltd. is caught in the middle.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that first of all the Ontario government should use local agents; people from the area. Why don’t they use agents from eastern Ontario? Secondly, if they are using agents, the agent should be the agent of the Ontario government and not at the same time the agent of the vendor. Mr. Speaker, I felt I should bring this matter to the attention of the House, and I’ve done so.

There is one further matter I should raise and that’s the area of grants given by the federal government to the Ontario government for French-language education in this province.

What happens basically in the Ottawa area, Mr. Speaker, is that something like $1 million a year is given by the federal government to the Ontario government for Franco-Ontarians for French education. I’m told that what happens to the money basically is that it’s paid to the province since because of our constitutional situation it cannot be paid directly. It’s paid to the provincial government and, right off the bat, they take $500,000 of it and we don’t know what happens to it. They just take $500,000. The other $500,000 is sent to the Ottawa Public School Board and is just used, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, for general funds and not specifically for French-language education in that area.

The problem is that in the area of French-language education, one of the biggest drawbacks and one of the biggest problems is that one needs adequate textbooks in French if he is going to teach a course, or subjects in the French language. They’re sorely lacking French-language textbooks. There is a need for people who can translate them. There is also the fact that teachers try to use textbooks which come from Canada and not textbooks that come from the exterior. If one is learning the history of this province, the history of certain people in this province, be they English or the French, is different from that in the history books in Quebec. If one is a Franco-Ontarian, one would like to know the history of his province, Ontario. This is not to the exclusion of the history of French-Canadians in Quebec, but Franco-Ontarians are people who live in this province and are proud to live in this province and want to know the history of this province. You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that in Quebec you don’t have the sort of French textbooks which can teach history about the Province of Ontario.

These are some of the problems. When these funds, Mr. Speaker, are not earmarked for this type of process, be it for textbooks or specifically for French-language education, then you have situations where the French side is lacking. So the French-language committee in the Ottawa area has asked for moneys to have more textbooks, not only for Ottawa but to set a pattern for textbooks for other schools across the province. They have been having a lot of problems.

First of all, we’ve never been able to learn from the Ontario government exactly where that money goes that’s earmarked for French-language education. There’s never been an adequate answer since 1971. We’ve been asking questions on this and we really know where it goes. Even school boards are diluting the money in their general funds. If we’re serious about French-language education -- and we should be as there are over 30,000 students just in the secondary schools -- we should make an effort to see that funds that are earmarked by the federal government for that particular purpose should be used for that purpose.

Monsieur l’Orateur, je voudrais tout simplement mentionner la question de renseignement en français dans nos écoles de langue française en Ontario. Je voudrais attirer l’attention des Membres du Parlement sur un problème qui, d’après moi, existe depuis 1971. Ce problème est celui-ci: depuis plusieurs années, M. l’Orateur, le gouvernement fédéral donne régulièrement à la province d’Ontario une subvention pour l’enseignement du français pour les Franco-Ontariens. Le montant de cette subvention est remis à la province qui à son tour le remet aux conseils scolaires. Malheureusement, d’après les renseignements dont je dispose actuellement, l’an passé le gouvernement fédéral a donné un million à la province pour l’enseignement du français dans la région d’Ottawa. De ce million, apparemment $500,000 ont été gardés par la province, et l’autre moitié ($500,000) a été donnée aux conseils scolaires.

Alors les Franco-Ontariens se demandent régulièrement ce qui arrive aux $500,000 donnés à la province, deuxièmement ce qui arrive aux $500,000 donnés aux conseils scolaires.

Vous savez, en éducation en français on a beaucoup de difficulté surtout en ce qui concerne les textes. Dans notre éducation française ici, on manque de textes français pour nous les Franco-Ontariens, que ce soit en histoire, en mathématiques, surtout si on insiste pour avoir des textes canadiens.

Du fait que ces montants-là donnés par le Fédéral ne vont pas spécifiquement pour l’éducation en français, je crois que c’est une lacune pour nous et je crois qu’on devrait avoir du gouvernement provincial une idée de la façon dont cet argent est employé, les $500,000 que la province garde. Qu’advient-il de cet argent, de ce montant de $500,000? Le conseil scolaire qui reçoit ce montant, qu’en fait-il?

Je crois que ces montants, qui sont donnés spécifiquement par le Fédéral, devraient être utilisés spécifiquement pour l’éducation en français de nos Franco-Ontariens parce que c’est le but de la subvention du gouvernement fédéral. Je crois que si on disposait de ce montant, on pourrait améliorer l’éducation en français de nos Franco-Ontariens et même de nos anglophones dans la province.

J’espère, M. l’Orateur, que ce problème se réglera le plus tôt possible. Quand le Comité consultatif de langue française autre pour avoir des textes en français qu’il ne reçoive donc pas du conseil scolaire une réponse comme celle-ci: “On n’a pas l’argent”, parce que, en fait, on a des montants donnés par le fédéral qui ne servent pas exclusivement à l’éducation en français. J’espère voir une solution à ce problème, M. l’Orateur.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just want to bring one matter to the attention of the House and it’s a question I have raised in the House before. Possibly it’s not of pressing importance but I think it’s important for any government to take care of people who sometimes receive the backhand from the majority of the community. What I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, is that some time ago I raised a question about an individual called Lee Davies.

This was a situation -- and I just want to make sure I get this right -- in which this person, born a female, is now through a succession of medical operations, clinically and medically a male person. Of course, you can see the problem -- driver’s licence and everything -- involved in that. This person, Lee Davies -- I have named him in the House regularly; he has gone on open-line shows and this type of thing -- is facing a situation. There are not numerous people in that situation; we are not dealing with thousands of votes here. It’s an indication that the governments which are elected by a mass of people should care for even certain individuals.

Anyway, the problem of Davies is this: He was able to get his driver’s licence changed to reflect his change of sex to a male person; he was able to get his OHIP card changed and his social security number changed but he can’t get his birth certificate changed. He can’t get it changed because the Official Statistics Act of the Province of Ontario has no procedure for when there is a change of sex. One can always make an application if there is a change of name or there is, in fact, a change of statistics. For instance, a child born out of wedlock can change its name. One can always make application to change the Official Statistics Act but the Official Statistics Act records your sex at your birth and this person who was born a female is presently a male. Doctors are saying that this person is a male. He is in a situation in which as a male person now, he is living with a female and wants to get married. He has, in fact, children which were born to him when he was a she. It gets very complex but this is what happened.

This person wants to get married but can’t get married with a birth certificate which would indicate a marriage between two females although he’s a male. He can’t get a passport because one needs a birth certificate and if one is presenting oneself as a male person, the passport should reflect this. So we have the annoyance, the difficulty that this person is going through if they want identification, and it says clearly here that he is a female and he doesn’t look like a female because this person now has got a beard and the whole bit and looks like a male.

And so I raise this problem. I have brought this to the attention of the minister and the present Provincial Secretary of Justice (Mr. Clement) at the time when he was Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this particular issue is not a thing on which elections are won or lost. But it is an indication that government should care, even though it involves very few people. And I said to the minister, it would require just a very minor amendment to the Official Statistics Act and that they should amend the Act to allow this type of change.

In other words, doctors are saying that this person is a male. If we are allowing our medical profession to do the sex-change operation, should not the rest of society adapt to this? It’s clearly a situation where medical technology has advanced beyond our laws, and so the law should be changed to allow this person to change his birth certificate to reflect his present status.

Of course, the minister has not done anything on it. I recall going on a programme called “Ombudsman” on CBC television and talking about this. Unfortunately, the minister had been changed about that time. The present minister (Mr. Handleman) was not prepared to come on television to discuss this situation, and so here we are again. I bring this up as further evidence of the insensitivity of this government. Why won’t they even discuss the problem when it requires such a minor amendment? So, I bring it again to the attention of the House. Make this minor change to allow persons such as Lee Davies to get this change in their birth certificate and in the Official Statistics Act to reflect their present status.

Mr. Speaker, I notice in Saskatchewan -- and my friends to the left will be proud of this and I suppose I should be, being from that province originally -- that the government there introduced legislation in the Saskatchewan Legislature yesterday that will enable persons who have had sex-change operations to have birth certificates altered to conform to their new sex. And they’ve done the same thing in BC now.

“The sex designation on the birth certificate cannot now be altered in such cases. Health Minister Walter Smishek said in an interview that at least five cases of sex-change operations have come to the attention of provincial health officials.”

Well, if they’ve had five cases in Saskatchewan, I can just imagine in Ontario with -- what? -- eight times the population or maybe 10 times the population of Saskatchewan, that it affects a fair number of people. Not so much the situation of Lee Davies, where you go from female to male, but you’ve got the operation going the other way.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I bring it again to the attention of the House. It’s a minor problem, but it seems to me it should be the type of problem where government, even though it affects just a few people, should show that it cares. There are no votes in this thing, but it shows humanity. And I encourage the government to make the changes. They’re not going to win votes, they’re not going to lose votes and they’re going to assist very few people, but at least they’re assisting a small group of citizens of this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to engage in this debate, and to begin by expressing congratulations to you in your office as Speaker, and to say that I am impressed by the way that you manage the business of this House. I must say that the months ahead will be difficult ones to deal with, and we wish you all the best in your handling of the debates in this House.

I must say to the hon. member who just spoke that I heartily concur in his remarks, especially in regard to the French textbooks in the French schools of this province. It is a major concern and they’re just not available, I know from experience I’ve had in my own riding. I know the problem will be just as acute in the riding of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle), so he can use the pressure of those of us who represent ridings like this to convince the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) to do something about it, and to get textbooks in the French language for our French-speaking students.

Now, the Speech from the Throne was a different kind of a speech. When it was over, some of us said it was bereft of substance and was rather a philosophic kind of speech where you could read almost anything into it.

I think the people out there are wondering if the statements that were made were really true, that the government is bankrupt. They are not putting forward any legislative programme, as has been the custom in the past, to give some indication of where we are going in the next few months.

I know the member who moved the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne talked about what they did last year and the year before, but he didn’t say what was coming up this year. I think the Speech from the Throne is to give direction and insight as to what the people can expect will be coming forth from their Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has concerned me for the last while, and came out of the Speech from the Throne, is the significant debate on law and order. It suggests that there is a real fear among people that crime is growing. It perhaps suggests something about the kind of society we are living in, and whether we are providing the kind of justice and social order that makes for peace and satisfaction and contentment among our citizens. Or are we creating a situation where injustices are growing and the kind of life that people have to live is causing conflict and strife; where our policies are fostering this kind of thing? The major law and order advocate was, I suppose, Richard Nixon in his election campaigns. This was a theme that he hammered away at time and again.

An hon. member: And Agnew too.

Mr. Ferrier: And Agnew too, of course. The people sort of went for that right-wing approach and said: “Here are outstanding men who are going to do something for us in this regard.”

Well, we know what they did for the people of the United States was to cause terrific embarrassment for them. The moral condition of public life there has never sunk so low. They started talking about law and order and deflected people away from what was really going on. I don’t know what would happen if we were ever to follow that kind of background to law and order here.

I think the government should say a little less about it and perhaps do more to provide the kind of society where justice prevails and where people are treated right under the law; and, of course, offenders are treated accordingly.

There is some indication in this civil service freeze that is going on across the province that the Ministry of Correctional Services is telling their institutions to hold the line. As far as staff are concerned, they are cutting back in their psychiatric treatment and their rehabilitation treatment. Now, I hope that what I have heard isn’t so, but this is what I have heard.

It seems to me to be the wrong direction to be following. More emphasis needs to be placed on rehabilitation and less on the punishment concept and to restore as many of these people to a useful life in society as is possible. I think that is important.

The mover of the Speech from the Throne talked about capital punishment. He wanted to see that implemented so that it is an offence to murder a policeman or a correction officer. I gathered, from what he was saying, he would like to see it brought back entirely. I don’t agree with capital punishment and I think it degrades the state to carry out the same kind of action that an offender, a murderer, engages in. I think the government is consciously thinking of a swing to the right. If this is some indication of it I think it had better look pretty carefully because if the government is talking about those kinds of programmes -- and the main advocates of those in this North American continent are Agnew and Nixon -- I’d run away from those kinds of thoughts if I were the government.

One thing has disturbed me and it has been referred to more eloquently than I will be able to do by the member for Nipissing. He drew attention, in the dying days of the last session, to a question that was posed to the Treasurer about what was being done about Design for Development in Northeastern Ontario. The document was tabled about four years ago at simultaneous meetings in Timmins and Sudbury. There was to be a response period then the second phase was to be presented to the municipalities up there. The member for Nipissing asked the question, “Where does this all stand now?”

Rather flippantly the Treasurer said, “When I left the Treasury 2½ years ago it was at a certain stage and when I picked it up and looked at it 2½ years later it’s at about the same stage.”

One wonders what the member for London South was doing. He kept saying they were doing something about it but his successor says that it’s at about the same stage. Certainly, they are giving us a snow job on that one and not doing very much about the development of northeastern Ontario.

Mr. Young: Typical Tory inertia.

Mr. Ferrier: They’ve been telling us they’re going to come out with some kind of development plan for the province. We haven’t seen it as yet and maybe the inertia will get out of that branch of the ministry and it might be proposed by the time the next election comes around or just a few days before.

Mr. Stokes: I think it was George Gathercole who talked about Design for Development in northeastern Ontario some 10 years ago.

Mr. Ferrier: It could have been.

Mr. Stokes: Ten years ago.

Mr. Ferrier: There’s lots of talk but there’s not so much action from the government.

Another thing that has been quite a subject of controversy in my riding is the possible going ahead with a natural resources centre. The chamber of commerce pioneered the idea and came down here to Queen’s Park and talked to the member for London South (Mr. White) when he was in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. They had a pretty good concept and a pretty good plan and the government showed some interest.

Mr. Stokes: What would they call it? The William Ferrier Natural Resources Centre?

Mr. Ferrier: Just wait now. The plan looked very good and I thought it had real merit and it still does. Finally, they got to the place where the government brought in the firm of Raymond Moriyama to do a study of a natural resources centre for Timmins and they decided that it should be developed around the old Hollinger buildings. This seemed to be the last place for it. It was a big subject in the municipal election the last time around -- I suppose it still is -- between the chamber of commerce and the municipal council as to whether or not the council knew that this was the landsite being considered. But about this time, the municipal council, who had got the land from Hollinger, decided to sell part of it to a plumbing firm for their offices to get them off one of the main streets, which wasn’t a bad idea. They also sold part of the complex to a local entrepreneur who was going to develop it into a talc mill for Johns-Manville.

If they now wanted to go ahead with the development of a natural resources centre, they’d have to buy back this property at much inflated costs. They sold it for -- I don’t know whether it was $30,000 or $45,000 -- but now they are talking about wanting about $270,000 to get it back. The council has more or less decided it is not going to put up any money.

I think the idea is still a good one. I don’t usually say very much in complimentary terms about the chamber of commerce, but I think their idea was good. I hope if it’s not possible to develop it on that present site that it could be developed in Timmins. Some people up there take the position that they are not too keen to have it.

I certainly would like to see it in our city, because I think it would do a great deal for us in the terms of a tourist attraction and extra employment and putting in one place the history of the area and this kind of thing. The idea has a lot of merit, and I’m hoping to ask some questions of the minister in this House about it. I certainly don’t want to see it shelved. It would be a shame after the work that was done by our people up there to see that go someplace else.

I wonder sometimes at the brains in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, at the contracts they let for reconstruction and repaving.

Mr. Stokes: They have the parliamentary assistant over there. Maybe he’ll pay attention.

Mr. Ferrier: Maybe he will pay some attention. They decided that they were going to upgrade Highway 101 between Pamour and Matheson. The road was in very bad shape. What they decided to do was to put on an extra couple of coats of asphalt over the already existing road. That was good in the summer when we drove along there. It was a pretty good road and all the rest of it. The last couple of times I’ve driven down that road the cracks in that asphalt are half an inch thick in all kinds of places, not just one or two, but almost throughout the whole span.

It seems to me as though we are paying construction firms to do a job and they are doing that kind of a poor job on our roads. Was that the best kind of way to spend our money? If we are going to repave the present road and put asphalt over what’s already there, maybe it is the most economical and best way of doing it. But, boy, to see those cracks on that road!

Mr. McIlveen: What number highway was that?

Mr. Ferrier: Highway 101. I would like the parliamentary assistant to the minister to look into that. I’d like to have him report back to me as to what his people think of that job.

Mr. Stokes: Take a drive up there.

Mr. McIlveen: I will take it out of Hansard.

Mr. Ferrier: All right, I will look forward to a response from him.

Another thing that I brought up here before in the House, and I will just reiterate it once more, is the whole matter of this lightweight, reliable and comfortable train. It is a joint project of Alcan Canada Products, Dominion Foundries and Steel and MLW Industries. Those of us who got the Dofasco magazine will have had a chance to look at it and have read a little bit about it. There was a presentation given us at the northeastern municipal association about the possible implementation of this train on a route between Toronto and Hearst. This train can get up to 120 miles an hour and it could provide very comfortable travel arrangements for the people taking it.

I’ve suggested that the ONR and the government look into this concept, as I think they are doing, and implement it for that route. I would point out that it would take two years once a decision has been made to go ahead with it before it can be in operation. But it would provide the kind of quick alternative to air transportation to northeastern Ontario that is not there right now. It’s all right to ride on a bus but sometimes it’s not as comfortable as it could be. As I say, I think that this concept holds a lot of promise for us. I admit that it would be a good election announcement for the government, but I wholeheartedly endorse the concept.

Another thing I’ve spoken about before is the possibility of getting a courthouse in Timmins. There is a great deal of inconvenience being inflicted on the people of that city by always having to go up to Cochrane to get the judge or to deal with land registry matters and that kind of thing. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations said he was going to Timmins during the break between the last sitting of the House and this one to look into that. Well, I don’t know whether he did or not --

Mr. Stokes: Nothing happened.

Mr. Ferrier: -- but I’d like to read a letter that I got from the former minister, dated June 27, 1974, in which he says:

“We have been looking at the situation and note that since the creation of the district, the district town has been the town of Cochrane. The courthouse building in Cochrane also houses the land registry office. Also, we are aware that the population of Timmins in the district of Cochrane has probably always been higher than that of Cochrane.

“As a result of our review of the situation, it would appear that there would be a great deal of logic in having the district courthouse in Timmins. We have no objection whatsoever to the relocation of the land registry office, except that for practical purposes I can see no advantages in setting up a second office for the district. This would mean closing the existing facility in Cochrane.”

I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I don’t necessarily want to see the offices in Cochrane closed. But I would like to see much better facilities in Timmins.

“There are some other issues which would have to be dealt with, and one is cost. It would undoubtedly cost in the order of $250,000 to build a new courthouse to replace the existing one, which has been extensively renovated during a three-year renovation programme in quite recent years.

“If we were to decide that the office should be moved some time in the future, the construction of the office itself would have to take its position in the priority list in this area since there are a substantial number of land registry offices throughout the province which are in need of renovation and replacement. These are gradually being carried out as sufficient capital funds are made available to the ministry.

“Again, I should indicate to you that this matter is still under consideration. However, I would appreciate your comments whether you feel it would be practical to close out the office in the town of Cochrane and transfer it to Timmins some time in the future.

“I might mention, before any public discussion takes place on this matter, that I would like to personally discuss the matter with the local law society, who I think would be in a good position to assess the impact of such a move since they would be the major users of this facility.”

I think that there could be two courthouses. Cochrane could still look after the northern part of the district and, with the expansion at Texasgulf going over the next few years, I think the need to have court facilities in Timmins will be that much greater.

Nowadays, when the spring assizes and the fall assizes are heard, people on jury duty have to drive up to Cochrane, 70 miles away, and spend a couple of days up there, sometimes longer, waiting to be called for jury duties. Many inconveniences result to the people of Timmins because they haven’t got a courthouse in Timmins.

There was for a short time a courthouse in Timmins with a judge located there and then the government changed its mind and took that away from us. I think that they would be best to review their thinking at that time and reconsider it, talk to the Law Society up there, the people who have most to do with the contact with the registry office and the courthouse, and I’m sure that some kind of workable arrangement can be made. After all, if we have to take our place on the priority list, if they make a decision today it might be 10 or 15 years before anything is done about it.

I see the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I wonder if he would just take a look at that too. That’s in his ministry, and perhaps we’ll talk to him about it privately but I think that that has a good deal of merit and I would like to see some serious thought given to it.

One of the things that I’ve had a great deal to do with in the last nine months has been the labour dispute that has been going on at the South Centennial Manor, which is under the jurisdiction of the Cochrane district board of management for the homes for the aged. There had been an assessment against that home for not providing for women nursing aids equal pay for equal work with the male orderlies. It was found after an investigation that their work, was in the essence, exactly the same, but they were being paid $100 and some less a month than the men were.

This had been going on for quite some time. In fact, a similar investigation had taken place in 1969 and an assessment was made against the board of management then. They changed the duties a little bit on paper, although they didn’t change them in practice, and then they went back to paying the women less than the men for those years. About a $25,000 award was made, the maximum possible, going back two years, to the women.

At the same time, the women got a nice little letter from the administrator, on the advice of the board of management, that their services were no longer needed, that they were going to replace them with registered nursing aids. They argued that if they had to pay the nursing aids within $11 of what an RNA got they would get the RNAs. One wonders, if the difference in wages is so close, then there must not be that much difference in duties.

Anyway, it took a long time, with discussions with the Minister of Labour and keeping after his department, and some people who had heard some things came forward and were prepared to testify. So the ministry laid charges that those 12 nursing aids had been dismissed because they took advantage of the provisions under the Employment Standards Act for equal pay for equal work.

The matter finally came before the courts on Feb. 24 I believe -- I was there for most of it -- and the decision was brought down on March 10 that the judge did find that, in fact, the board of management was guilty of the offences charged. He then, in his decision, ordered that the board of management must pay these nursing aids wages from Aug. 18 to March 10 but he didn’t rule that they should get their jobs back. He took advantage of some provision under the Interpretation Act and the fact that the Employment Standards Act had been changed and he ruled that he had discretion in the matter.

I’m not sure whether it’s going to end there or not. I’m still looking into it and am still discussing it with various people, but I don’t know, That will be another big levy against the people. There were only seven cases heard and there was a $700 fine, $100 in each case, but five to seven months’ wages for no work is a pretty large assessment. It means that the taxpayers have been hit with a pretty high assessment because of the stupidity and the stubbornness of this board of management for the Cochrane district.

When some of them were testifying before the hearing they were talking about being a former reeve, or a former mayor and so on, and the lawyer for the Ministry of Labor said: “It seems like this board of management is sort of an old folk’s home for old-time politicians,” or something to this effect. Of course, these politicians were all Conservative appointments, and for the life of me I can’t imagine why the Conservatives would serve themselves so badly as to have those kinds of appointments.

I have tried -- I have brought it up in the House and I have written to the Premier -- to make sure that none of that present board is reappointed on the newly constituted board of April 1, because any board that caused so much animosity and conflict, with such a bad-faith approach to employees and such an attitude to women, as far as I am concerned is deplorable. They have caused trouble in the community. The cost of legal fees and the time in court and all those back wages is just a classic episode of mismanagement.

It has been a very, very bad way that things have been done and I hope that in the newly constituted board, and in all boards of management, there will be some thought given to putting some women on these boards.

I don’t know whether, when the member for Durham (Mr. Carruthers) brought in his report on aging, there was some recommendation in that report that there should be a proportionate number of women on the boards of management of homes for the aged.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): The member can take it for granted that there will be fair representation on all 20. We are that type of government.

Mr. Ferrier: I will tell the member that the type of government the Tories exercised by appointing the people they did -- not one a woman -- and the kind of trouble that occurred in that area --

Mr. Carruthers: There is something wrong with the member up there if he hasn’t looked after that.

Mr. Ferrier: Well the largest area is represented by the member for Cochrane North, so if the member wants to criticize him, why that’s fine and dandy.

Mr. Carruthers: Does the member for Cochrane South have any difficulty in his riding?

Mr. Ferrier: It goes into my riding, but it was primarily the members of the board from his area who caused much of the difficulty. The two members from my riding were prominent Conservatives, on the Conservative executive, so I can only say that had there been some women on that board --

Mr. Carruthers: Write me a letter.

Mr. Ferrier: -- even if they were Conservatives, I think if they had been women Conservatives they might have talked some sense into those stupid men.

Mr. Carruthers: Drop me a letter.

Mr. Ferrier: I think that by not providing a more comprehensive health care organization in our province, in a number of instances our homes for the aged are becoming chronic care homes. They are supposed to be homes for ambulatory patients who can come and go a little bit and move around, but because there have not been adequate chronic care facilities in the province they have had to have some place for them and they have used the senior citizen homes.

I think there has to be a lot more planning and a lot more thought given to trying to provide chronic care accommodation for people who need it throughout the province. Nursing homes will not take patients who need more than 2.5 hours of nursing care a day or something, because the homes are supposedly not equipped for it. I think that what should happen is that the nursing homes could have some wings designated for that, and they might be paid on a different basis. But I think that we’ve got to resolve that problem.

Mr. Speaker, the major thing that’s been going on in my riding and getting a lot of press lately has been this closing of the mine in the township of Reeves, some 40 miles west of Timmins. The majority of the workers at that mine are from my riding.

Now, my leader had written to the vice-president, health, safety and environment of Johns-Manville about this matter, Dr. Paul Kotin. And Dr. Kotin replied to my leader, and he has given me a copy of this letter. I’d like to read a bit of it into the record. I know my leader read another part of it during his reply on Tuesday, but I’d like to read this in. Dr. Kotin says:

“It is well to emphasize again to you that in my capacity as vice-president for health, safety and environment, my responsibility is to make certain that the work environment throughout Johns-Manville complies with government regulations. And even more importantly, to assure to the maximum extent possible a non-hazardous occupational environment.

“It was this latter consideration that initiated the steps leading to the closing of the Reeves mine. It was a decision fully in concert with our corporate commitment to do everything technologically possible to provide a safe workplace, and in the absence of that, to seek other means for worker protection.”

Now, who is that doctor trying to kid about dust levels at the operation? The mine was closed down for a period when time was spent clearing away some overburden and some waste rock in the open pit. The mill was down for nine months then. But when that mill was in operation at previous times the dust level was 28 fibres per cubic centimetre. I think the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) suggested that figure to the Minister of Health, and he replied that the hon. member for Nickel Belt might not be wrong.

The working environment was deplorable, and this company knew the dangers of overexposure to asbestos fibres and the damage to the lungs and the health of the working people. And yet they went along exploiting those workers, forcing them to work in those kinds of hazardous conditions and never bringing it to their attention that it was a hazardous situation. And then to write a letter like that is nothing but outright dishonesty. I would say that the man is suffering from some kind of moral degeneracy. He claimed a “corporate commitment to do everything technologically possible.” What a bunch of claptrap that is.

This company got some pressure because of the amount of cancer that was developing, and asbestosis in their mill in Scarborough focused public attention on it. The government began to look into it and do something about it.

When the Ham commission was meeting in Timmins, the Steelworkers union that represents the workers there made a presentation on the high dust levels and of the terrible situation in the pit itself. There were loaders without any brakes and some trucks without any doors or windows. If there were doors, they were wired shut. The men who drove those trucks in the open pit had to crawl through those wired shut doors to get into them. There were no heaters in them; there were a host of violations of working safety and violations of the Mining Act.

I raised the matter with the minister, and at that point he gave the old chestnut: “Oh, well, you fellows over there are just trying to implicate our ministry. We are doing a good job.”

One thing I did hear when I met those men was that every time the mining inspector was going to show up there, the night before the management people said to them: “Make sure things are cleaned up around here because Bob Lockhart is coming tomorrow.” How did the company know if the mine inspector didn’t warn them?

My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has been hammering away at the point that the mining inspectors going to these mines are notifying them ahead of time and warning them of conditions. As a result, they do everything possible to curtail operations and to clean things up. When the inspectors get there, they don’t get a realistic picture of what is going on.

This is what Johns-Manville have been doing over the years. They have been subjecting workers to unconscionable levels of asbestos dust. Then when it suited their purpose, they made a corporate decision in Denver, Colo., and they said: “We are going to close that down, and we’ll use this as an excuse.” They closed down for two or three days and put those workers out of work. There was anxiety, confusion and lost wages.

Of course, as far as the Employment Standards Act is concerned, they do not have to pay for that temporary layoff, but they led the men to believe that they wouldn’t lose any money for that period. “After all, Johns-Manville is a benevolent company, a good corporate citizen. We will look after you.” But, they said: “We will not give you a cent.”

In their contract there is some termination pay, so many dollars for each year worked, and when they reopened they gave a letter to every man who was on the permanent staff, saying: “You are through on April 30. We are living up to the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.” To those who were there less than three months: “Goodbye. We don’t need you. Out you go.” Therefore the temporary people didn’t get any consideration at all.

Some men are sitting around doing very little, although the management supervisory staff will ask them what they are doing and they are supposed to sort of half look busy. But they are not really doing anything productive, even in the sense of getting the place ready to shut down.

Some of the men have hunted around and they have got offers of other jobs, and if the company would discharge them they could get their termination pay and go to these jobs that have become available. But this company, Johns-Manville, as is suggested by this Dr. Kotin, is so concerned about the workers that it is taking the serious step of shutting down operations on the basis of its commitments to employees and environmental health. Well, if it is making a commitment to its employees, why doesn’t it co-operate with these employees now and lay them off, give them their termination pay and let them go and find alternative work? But no, they won’t do that kind of thing.

The workers also told me there was some good ore-bearing rock on a fairly significant basis that was sent out to the tailings dam or the muck pile, that they weren’t even processing it. This company has a pretty shoddy record. They know better than anybody, I suppose, what the danger is to the health of workers working in these kinds of unsafe conditions. They forced their workers for a number of years to do that with no concern for them, I submit. Then when it suits their purpose they use this kind of an excuse to shut down.

They say: “We can’t meet those two fibres per cubic centimetre levels that you imposed on us in Ontario.” They’re doing it in the United States, I’m told. They’ve never proven to the Ministry of Natural Resources, or the Ministry of Health that they couldn’t, but it was going to cost them a bit of money and it suited their purpose to close down. The victims are these 120 or so men who have been abused, I suggest Mr. Speaker, by working in those kind of unsafe conditions, and now they’re dislocating them in this way.

I don’t know whether the motion put forward by the local of that mine is the most sensible solution. The workers have unanimously endorsed the motion, saying that they wish the province to move in and take over this mine and operate it as a Crown corporation with the understanding, of course, that it would have to be a model of safety and have as dust-free an environment as is possible for an asbestos mine. There are reserves there for five to eight years. This company is closing down and I think they’re likely going to dismantle the mill, which will mean that reserve will not likely ever be processed. They are in the process of developing a talc body a little distance away and they want to use the land that was designated for the natural resources centre in Timmins to process this talc.

I would say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) and the Minister of Health that I’d like to see the whole thing taken away from Johns-Manville, because they’ve shown themselves to be such a shoddy, irresponsible outfit. Let the province operate it themselves if they don’t. This government is not noted for its nationalization of our resource industries. There must be some pretty sure commitments that that talc operation will meet acceptable standards and men will not be forced to work in unsafe conditions or have their health jeopardized.

Who knows what’s going to happen to some of these men? We hope the worst isn’t going to happen, but some of them have worked in the highest dust counts imaginable.

I came across a little letter that was written by a fellow by the name of Ted McMeekin of Hamilton in the Hamilton Spectator of Feb. 25, 1975. This letter says a lot about this whole matter of environmental health. It says:

“It must be comforting to those who work in the uranium mines at Elliot Lake and with asbestos at the Johns-Manville plant in Scarborough to keep hearing cabinet ministers talk about the mine dust and the level of asbestos fibres in the air as falling within government environment and safety guidelines. It’s about time the ministries responsible for health and safety in our industrial work places forgot about meaningless statistics, their so-called standards, and began to look at the important ones, namely the number of workmen who have died or have developed terminal illnesses as a result of their work environment.

“I recall the lyrics of an old Peter, Paul and Mary song which asked: ‘How many deaths would it take until they know that too many people have died?’ if health and safety standards need to be improved, then let us improve them. Better this than creating false confidence in the minds of men and women workers who end up dying because they believe the place at which they work to be safe.”

Now what value do we put upon our working people, upon our people in this province? Surely in our day of Christian culture the individual is of utmost importance and we as legislators and people in government should not be calling upon our workers to work in -- or taking any chances that they are working in -- unsafe conditions which are jeopardizing their health and leading them to chronic illness or to an early death.

The situation in Elliot Lake is tremendously upsetting. I read statistics the other night on a brief presented by the McIntyre Research Foundation about the situation that existed in the Porcupine mining camp in the early days when there was dry drilling and when there was not too much concern for dust suppression. The statistics are just as dramatically high as they are in Elliot Lake and the number of deaths, the number of silicosis claims, the number of impairments of workers in that area at that time was just awful. We in the gold mining camps have lived with that kind of thing for a long time.

There have been improvements in dust suppression techniques in the gold mines. There has been better ventilation and wet drilling; one of the controversial things they have done is to use this aluminum dust therapy. It is aluminum dust that is blown into the air in the dry before the workers go in and it’s supposed to render harmless the silica dust that the men breathe in the course of their work underground. I’ve read a presentation by a man by the name of Dix of the McIntyre Research Foundation who has given the rationale behind it, saying that it has cut down dramatically on the silicosis incidence in the gold mining camps. To their knowledge they can’t see that there has been any impairment in lung conditions among those who have taken this treatment although the Steelworkers feel very strongly that it has affected the men and the men themselves feel that it covered up their lung diseases.

I don’t know. I hope the Ham commission will do some further review of the matter. If the McIntyre Research Foundation is right, so much the better. If they are not, then we had better --

Mr. Stokes: We had better know about it.

Mr. Ferrier: We had better know about it.

There was a little article in Popular Science, November, 1974, that talked about an air conditioner hazard and has some relevance here.

“A mysterious film of grey dust that was spoiling experiments in laboratory cold rooms has provoked a surprising discovery. Corrosion of air conditioners in normally cooled rooms produces a level of aluminum dust in the air that exceeds acceptable standards. The finding comes from a research team, a chemist father and physicist son, working at the University of Toronto, Canada.

“Dr. Dymtre Buchnea and his son Alexander were asked to find the source of dust that was ruining enzyme experiments in rooms kept at 37 to 40 degrees. The dust apparently precipitates out of the air at relatively low temperatures because there is more clean water in the dust in cold rooms. The dust acts as a nucleus around which water vapour condenses; larger particles are formed and a film of dust is deposited.

“When the intrigued researchers sampled rooms with similarly corroded air conditioners, where the temperature range was 68 degrees to 73 degrees Fahrenheit, they found the difference enormous. The air contained 10 times as much of this pollutant. The reason: The aluminum dust remained suspended in the air as fine particles instead of precipitating out. Breathing aluminum powder does not directly poison the body but it can cause changes in lung tissue that eventually progress to a disease resembling emphysema according to Dr. Sam Simmons, chief of the bioenvironmental laboratory branch of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Scientists at the University of Toronto are now investigating the possible health hazards of air conditioner dusts.”

Well, if air conditioners cause this kind of aluminum dust in the air beyond the acceptable standards, imagine the amount of aluminum dust that these men worked in when the containers of aluminum dust are just spewed out in the drys where they change their clothes before they go underground.

I note in talking to the older miners who have chest conditions and who invariably try to establish claims for disablement due to silicosis with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, that invariably they are saying: “Oh no, there are no radiological findings of silicosis. You’ve no problem that way. Your problem is emphysema or maybe bronchitis.” Now the question that arises in my mind is, is this emphysema from all that aluminum dust? I don’t know, but it’s certainly worth considering.

That’s a thing I am trying to follow up and I hope the Minister of Health, the Ham commission and the Minister of Natural Resources take a pretty careful look at that, and if necessary have further research done on it. Maybe the workers have been subjected to another kind of lung condition.

I hope the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment will also take a good close look at the United Asbestos plant in Midlothian township and make sure that plant meets the required safety and air sample conditions for the workers when that starts up this spring, because we could be into another situation.

The mining companies have been the greatest proponents of free enterprise and tax holidays and concessions and, “Let us do what we want,” probably of any industry in the whole country. I’ve seen it in my area in the gold mines, particularly in the early days but to some significant degree yet. The Elliot Lake situation is a major problem at this present time. The asbestos situation is quite significant.

When the zinc refinery at Texasgulf started up, for some period of time there were health problems there too. Since then I think they have probably rectified them, but for a period of time the sulphuric acid vapours were quite significantly high and there were a number of workers who developed nose bleeds; in some cases the enamel of their teeth was eaten away; there were some skin rashes and this type of thing. There were some problems there.

Now I’m told -- I hope that the information that I have is correct -- that they new have three times the volume of air ventilation. They have changed the ventilation; the cell house is now relatively safe for the workers and the sulphuric acid vapours in the air are within the acceptable standards. But for a period of time there were workers who worked in really unsafe conditions.

This mining industry seems to be so callous and unconcerned about their workers. They’ll put them into all kinds of unsafe working conditions. They’ve got to get that ore out and make a profit; they’ve got to make a big impression on the shareholders; they’ve got to manipulate the stock markets and all the rest of it.

I think they’ve got a pretty shoddy record. Consider the way that Johns-Manville have operated, the way they have treated their workers, the way they’ve closed down that mine, the unsafe conditions they’ve perpetrated and the way they have not used the ore that’s there -- in fact, they’ve wasted so much.

I have never been the strongest exponent of government operation of our industries, but since we give away so much to these companies in terms of concessions in the taxation field and in view of the way the men have been treated and the injuries and early deaths so many of them have suffered, not to mention the explosive philosophy, to me it’s capitalism at the worst and I have been forced to the conclusion that we should be developing our own resources through Crown corporations.

After all, Mr. Speaker, there was a report that I believe came from the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism. If my memory serves me correctly, that committee was of the opinion that any new ore body that was developed should be at least 50 per cent owned by the people.

This is what is happening in Manitoba. They’ve said that a company that wants to bring an ore body to production must give notification to the minister, and he has 30 days to decide whether the province wants to take a 50 per cent equity position in the operation of that mine.

I think there must be much more public involvement in the mining field. These companies will say, of course, “Well, we’re not going to play that kind of a game with you. We’re not going to put money into exploration and development. We’ll do it in the Yukon or the Dominican Republic. We’ll go here and we’ll go there. You fellows will be left holding the bag.”

I think it was the Porcupine Prospectors and Developers Association in their brief to the minister’s advisory committee on Feb. 28 that said the way to handle the situation was to reintroduce the legislation that had existed in the federal tax Act until 1972; to reverse the white paper, to reverse Carter, to give all the tax holidays they had enjoyed and to give them all those kind of incentives. Well, they don’t need it. They’ve got so many incentives now that we’re subsidizing them.

I’ve heard people from this industry talk about people on welfare and people on unemployment insurance in a derogatory sense. Rut if there are any of the corporate welfare bums that David Lewis talks about, they’re in the mining industry.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what is needed is the government to move into the whole field of exploration and development and to get involved in the way that other provinces are doing. The minister himself, a year ago, made a statement that this is what they were proposing. He has reaffirmed this in reply to questions that I’ve directed to him in the House, stating that they’re certainly going to go ahead with this.

Even in that report, which I think was prepared by Kates, Peat, Marwick and Co., for that very noble select committee of which you know something, Mr. Speaker, the mining companies said they were prepared to work on a co-operative basis. Well, let’s see the government move in this direction.

We got something like $144 million or more from the mining industry in this last year on this Mining Tax Act that went through. I suppose $100 million of that, if one wanted to say it in these terms, was shoved by the government into that Syncrude deal to develop oil sands away out there in Alberta to look after, I suppose, the oil needs of southern Ontario.

I would suggest that money could have been better spent in developing the resource potential we have in the mining field in this province though a Crown corporation, rather than subsidizing Imperial Oil and Gulf Canada and whoever else it was. Premier Lougheed has so much money out there he doesn’t know what to do with it. Let him put the money up and let us develop our Ontario show.

One other thing I suppose I should make some reference to is that since the Mining Tax Act went through Texasgulf has announced its major expansion. That Act was designed for Texasgulf; I don’t think there is any doubt about it. Once it was proclaimed, it went ahead with its announcement and by 1978 the copper smelter and refinery should be built at a cost of $200,000 with a capacity of about 130,000 tons of refined copper every year. There will be a mine and mill expansion which should also be completed in 1978 at a cost of $100 million and the company is also thinking about putting another circuit in their concentrator and of going ahead with a fertilizer plant utilizing the sulphuric acid, and so on.

It’s a tremendous boost for the economy of northeastern Ontario and if one believes in free enterprise and capitalism, that Mining Tax Act, of course, was the thing that probably did the job. I am prepared to admit that but I wonder, with the kind of concessions we have to give whether that should really be developed in the private sector or whether the public sector should operate it. Anyway, this development will mean there will be many new jobs created in northeastern Ontario and there will be significant demands on the whole of the area in terms of transportation.

Highway 101 was reconstructed but on a two-lane basis. I suggest it will have to be done very soon on a four-lane basis. There will have to be thought given to a bypass around Timmins. These pressures will be so great that we will have to see these things done. The company wants to have the road to Smooth Rock Falls completed that much sooner because it sees a source of employees living in Smooth Rock Falls and in Cochrane and Iroquois Falls and Matheson. It feels that road would provide jobs and homes for people in Smooth Rock Falls. It may be right and maybe it should be facilitated in that.

As far as housing is concerned, the shortage is acute now and it will be more acute. Private developers will do some and the city is trying to work to meet the crisis and so on but I suggest -- and they are doing something in this regard -- that Texasgulf has some responsibility itself to see that housing is built in this area. Hollinger did it; it built houses. Dome has done it and I think it is proposing maybe to do more; I don’t know but I think maybe. I think Texasgulf has some obligation to provide home housing for its employees as well.

Other mines have moved into an area -- they have moved into the wilderness very often -- and have had to see the public develop all kinds of facilities and services for them. Texasgulf was lucky that it moved into an area where many of these things were and I think now that there is increased pressure for more housing, Texasgulf must be prepared to show some leadership and spend a fair amount of money and come up with some kind of plant to provide housing for its people.

Mr. Speaker, the time is nearly 6 o’clock and I have covered quite a number of subjects. I spoke at greater length than I intended to, but I think I have wound up my speech and would yield the floor to some other hon. member to resume at 8 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: It will be the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston).

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