Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion 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 Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. L C. Henderson (Lambton): The Liberals have no leader, you know, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I was just starting my remarks last night at adjournment and I didn’t get into much of what I really intended to say --

lnterjections by hon. members.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Where are the member’s supporters?

Mr. Laughren: -- because of interjections from the government; they diverted me from my purpose. I will not be so diverted today, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of issues I want to talk about, one being the problems of the smaller communities in northern Ontario and the other being the whole question of sex discrimination in the Province of Ontario and what this government is doing, or not doing about it.

Those may seem like divergent topics, Mr. Speaker, but I assure you they are of concern to a great many people in this province. One of the things about northern Ontario, and my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) has spoken often about it, is the whole question of the lack of economic development and what that means in terms of the quality of life for people who live in those communities.

It’s not some kind of academic term. The lack of economic development can be translated very clearly into the kind of life that those people live in those small communities. We know, for example, that not having medical services means a great deal to the people in a community, and we know that the lack of recreational facilities can affect the kind of life that people lead for the rest of their lives.

For example, if the young people in a community have no recreational facilities at all it can lead to all sorts of problems in that community in terms of what those young people do with their time. There are many small communities that just don’t have any facilities such as these at all.

The lack of job opportunities in the small communities means that the young people, the better educated people, women in particular, have a lack of job opportunities in those small communities. And it’s not just the small communities; it’s even places as large as Sudbury and, I suspect, Thunder Bay, the Soo and North Bay as well. But certainly in the smaller communities, there is a real problem in terms of job opportunities for young people.

The poor roads and poor communications feed the kind of alienation that people feel in northern Ontario. Of course, problems such as polluted water supply and lack of sewage facilities mean these people are being denied the kind of quality of life of people in southern Ontario, and these people would not stand for it for a moment. Small communities in the south, even of equal population, I suspect would not live under the same conditions that citizens in northern Ontario have to live under.

The government, as a response to these complaints about lack of services in northern Ontario, points to the increased municipal grants for northern Ontario and the resource equalization grants, and builds the odd new road or promises the odd new road or the odd new passing lane as though that was the answer to the problems. Municipal politicians across northern Ontario --

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Where are the member’s alternatives?

Mr. Laughren: If the member will just listen l’ll tell him what the alternatives are. Mr. Speaker, municipal politicians in northern Ontario --

Mr. Gilbertson: They don’t believe the member anyway.

Mr. Laughren: Municipal politicians in northern Ontario have traditionally responded by demanding more grants from Queen’s Park. When I think of the kind of wealth we in northern Ontario are sitting upon, and yet we come to Queen’s Park with our cap in our hand -- in a kind of world where resources are declining, where there’s going to be a tremendous shortage of these natural resources in the years to come -- our municipal politicians in the north come down here with their hands out and say, “Give us more grants. That’s the answer.” I think that’s insanity.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): We wouldn’t have Ontario without the north.

Mr. Henderson: The member for Nickel Belt won’t live long enough to see that.

Mr. Laughren: That is not the answer. It will not be, until the people of northern Ontario realize, in the first place -- the member for Algoma said, “What’s your solution?” I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker -- that the solution to the problems in northern Ontario is not simply a matter of more grants to those communities in northern Ontario.

Mr. Reid: It would help.

Mr. Gilbertson: I just had a letter from a constituent who wants us to leave it the way it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

Mr. Gilbertson: I have a letter.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t really want to get into this topic now. I wanted to wait until the budget debate to talk about what the long-term economic solution is for northern Ontario. But really, the long-term solution to the problems of northern Ontario will never be achieved until the people in Ontario own their own resources, because that’s the lever for unlocking the development of northern Ontario.

Until we own our own resources, until we determine to what extent those resources are going to be processed into finished products, then we shall never control the development of northern Ontario. If you or I, Mr. Speaker, owned those resources, we would do the same as the multinational corporations are doing, and that is, exploit them in order to maximize the profits. That’s the name of the game. We should have no misunderstanding about that.

What I am saying is that if the people of Ontario owned those resources, it would be an entirely different story.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): The member means the people of northern Ontario, doesn’t he?

Mr. Laughren: The people in Ontario, not the people in northern Ontario.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member is talking about state ownership.

Mr. Laughren: I am talking about public ownership of our natural resources. That’s exactly what I am talking about. Until the day comes that that is achieved, and it will never be achieved until we have an NDP government in this province, then we’ll never maximize the benefits to the people of Ontario of that enormous supply of resources.

Mr. Speaker, there is another solution, of course, that people in northern Ontario talk about. We have the Ed Diebel solution; he is a disenchanted Tory from North Bay, who claims that northern Ontario should be a separate province.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): He had a lot of support, didn’t he? He had a tremendous amount of support, didn’t he?

Mr. Laughren: No, he has virtually no support and he certainly doesn’t have mine either.

Mr. Havrot: He had no people show up in Kirkland Lake.

Mr. Laughren: That’s correct, and I don’t support him either, because that’s a simplistic solution to a complicated problem. He gets the kind of support that he deserves for that kind of scheme.

The complaints about northern Ontario continue. We hear them over and over again in this Legislature from members from northern Ontario. But at the same time, in southern Ontario we are continuing to see good farm land go out of production at -- well, there are different figures, but 26 acres an hour, 365 days a year, farm land is going out of production; I’ve heard estimates as high as 50 acres an hour. While this is occurring, there is land in northern Ontario sitting idle and no development at all occurring.

There is a strange kind of contradiction in this whole process of paving over southern Ontario, because while this farm land is going out of production, a farmer some place else in this country kills his calves because he is not getting the proper price for his calves.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s a world-wide problem.

Mr. Laughren: Public wrath descends upon him while we continue to pave over southern Ontario, which has good farm land and in the future will be required for farm products. There is a contradiction there that this government hasn’t dealt with.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They have farming problems in the communist countries too.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, I am not expounding the virtues of communist countries --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is a world-wide problem.

Mr. Laughren: I am just telling the member that this government has still not come up with any kind of overall plan to develop the province in a rational way.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): A five-year plan.

Mr. Laughren: No, it needs to be longer than that. It takes five years to --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Listen, my friend, five years ago in this province planning was a dirty word.

Mr. Yakabuski: Just as far as the member’s party was concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Despite all the promises, we still don’t have an overall plan for the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Henderson: We’ve had one for the life of this government.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Tell the present Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) that we don’t need planning in the Province of Ontario and see what he says. It is because of a lack of planning that the Tories still don’t know how to govern properly for all the people in Ontario.

Mr. B. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): The member’s type of planning won’t help the issue.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Planning is a four-letter word.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Planning has all kinds of connotations.

Mr. Laughren: Well, let the member tell me what kind of planning it is when we have possibly four million people in a 130-mile stretch from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Oshawa, with projections that there is going to be as many as eight million people by the end of the century, while at the same time we have underdevelopment in northern Ontario? What kind of sanity is that?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member is talking about regimentation.

Mr. Yakabuski: Under our system we can’t send them to Siberia.

Mr. Havrot: We’ll call in the troops and force them up there.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Laughren: Well, let me tell my friend something --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Laughren: The Tories claim that if we direct growth, we are telling people where to live and work. Well, let me tell them that the people who graduate from our high schools, colleges and universities in northern Ontario are being told that they must go to southern Ontario to work because that’s where the jobs are.

Mr. Havrot: Bull! The member will find out when his kids grow up. I have found out already. My kids had jobs in northern Ontario and didn’t have to go south.

Mr. Laughren: The Tories are doing their own kind of direction.

Mr. Havrot: The member will find out when his kids grow up.

Mr. Laughren: I will find out that my kids would probably prefer to live in northern Ontario but the job opportunities will not be there for them --

Mr. Havrot: My kids had jobs in northern Ontario without going south.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): What’s wrong with southern Ontario? It’s a great place to live.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I might say that with a new chairman of the Ontario Northland, there is very little indication that anything will change in northern Ontario.

Mr. Havrot: The member must have fallen out of bed this morning, on his head.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): I heard that the member grew up in southern Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would direct his remarks through the Chair and ignore some of the interjections.

Mr. Laughren: I thought I was talking through the Chair.

Mr. Stokes: I thought he was, Mr. Speaker, despite all the interjections over there.

Mr. Havrot: Did the member for Nickel Belt fall out of bed this morning on his head?

An hon. member: Throw him out.

Mr. Laughren: Well, Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that the government in the Province of Ontario must begin to direct the kind of growth we have, because at the present time it is being directed without their guidance into southern Ontario.

We need only look at developments such as Metro Centre, the York region sewer line, Pickering, Cayuga, Nanticoke -- where is the sanity of that kind of planning, while in northern Ontario we have an out-migration of people to southern Ontario? There is no sanity in that at all.

There are significant growth centres in northern Ontario, Mr. Speaker. There is North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, Thunder Bay -- but it is no thanks to the government of Ontario that the potential is there for development, because this government is not doing anything to direct growth. How else could we be sitting here in 1975 with still no overall provincial plan -- none whatsoever? That truly is deplorable. As a province, Mr. Speaker, we surely have enormous potential, more potential than any other jurisdiction in this country.

Mr. Havrot: How long has the member lived in the north?

Mr. Laughren: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as long as this government sits in power the people in northern Ontario are not going to receive the kind of benefits to which they are entitled. How else, Mr. Speaker, could we have a report on a small community by the name of Gogama -- I would like to talk about Gogama for a moment --

Mr. Yakabuski: I wish he would. I wish he would.

Mr. Laughren: -- because it is indicative of the kind of neglect that other people in northern Ontario receive from this government. I would like to quote from a report --

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s where the member abandoned the little fellow and went with the establishment.

Mr. Laughren: I am trying not to be provocative this morning, Mr. Speaker. I am talking directly to you.

Mr. Speaker: Just talk to me.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I notice you always listen to me.

Mr. Havrot: It’s not because he wants to.

An hon. member: He’s doing a great job.

Mr. Laughren: I’d like to quote from a special report on water quality and supply problems in Gogama, prepared by the --

Mr. Stokes: Just listen carefully.

Mr. Laughren: -- Ministry of the Environment in 1973.

Mr. Henderson: He understands the problem in the Nickel Belt.

Mr. Stokes: He doesn’t want to flood the north like the government does. The government would like to make all of northern Ontario a huge reservoir for the south.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, we have a combination of the member for Lambton who wants to flood northern Ontario and the member for Timiskaming who wants to sell it to the highest bidder for the sake of a few jobs at the minimum wage. That is the story of the member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Havrot: Boy, the member can twist facts around. He is a master at it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, if I could go back directly to the problems of Gogama, it is a community of 600 people, where they have two sources of drinking water. They have the Ministry of Natural Resources communal water supply, the Canadian National Railways communal supply, and there is a private-well source of supply. I would like to quote from the report of 1973. First of all, they are talking about the CNR waterworks:

“This system was installed subsequent to an accidental spill of a noxious chemical, methyl isobutal ketone, from a railway tank car in 1962. The chemical seeped into the ground and a number of private wells became contaminated. The CNR acknowledged its responsibility for any damages it caused and extended its waterworks system to those whose wells were affected. The extensions to the system do not meet the minimum standards required by the Ministry of the Environment.

“Initially, 19 homes were connected to the CNR system and during the years since the chemical spill, an additional 11 connections were made when the area of contamination increased.

“The extensions made to permit these connections were also without the required approval.

“Due to the extra demand associated with the increasing number of connections, and an 800-gal. pressure tank which is barely adequate to maintain pressure throughout the system, the homes have experienced inadequate pressure. Also due to the fact that standby power facilities or standby chlorination facilities are not provided, there has been an instance when the system could not pump water for a two-day period due to an electrical failure, and other instances where unchlorinated water was pumped into the system due to chlorinator breakdown.”

And then further on:

“Adverse samples containing coliform bacteria were collected from the distribution system by the Ministry of the Environment staff on May 29, 1973, during a period in which the chlorinator was out of order and untreated water was being pumped into the distribution system. The operating authority had not notified the consumers that their water was unsafe for consumption.

“In general, this system is over-extended in its ability to supply water to the consumer and the quality of the water supply has been questionable at times.”

That is the CNR water supply.

Let me talk to you for a moment, Mr. Speaker, abut the private water supply, which is from ground wells. I am quoting from the report again:

“A complaint from the residents of Gogama whose wells were affected had been received by the Ministry of the Environment and Texaco Canada Ltd. had acknowledged that there had been a product loss of 800 to 1,000 gal. at their local service station.

“Samples collected from the well supplies of R. Gravelle, E. Tourgeon, and C. Simoneau of the Texaco service station all showed significant levels of gasoline contamination.”

And then further:

“Samples collected from other well supplies show high concentrations of phenols. Gasoline, which is characteristically high in phenolic compounds, may be responsible for the phenols found in these well supplies.”

And then they talk further about the private water supply:

“Tests performed on some samples for nitrogen compounds revealed significant nitrate levels. Nitrate levels ranged from one part per million as N to 20 parts per million as N. The accepted safe limit for nitrate in a potable water supply has been determined to be 10 parts per million as N. Levels of nitrate in water supplies above this limit have been associated with the cause of methemoglobinemia, a disease affecting infant children.

“Subsequently, a follow-up survey was conducted Nov. 23, 1973, at which time a representative 35 wells were sampled throughout the community. Again, significant levels of nitrates were found in all samples, with over 50 per cent of these containing nitrates in excess of the accepted level of 10 parts per million as N.

“It is felt that the probable source of these nitrate levels is the biological degradation of sewage waste. Nitrogen compounds are an end product of this process. With sewage waste water being in many instances discharged directly into the ground water-table in the cesspool disposal systems and with the potable water supply being this same ground water, it is not surprising that nitrogen compounds associated with the decomposition of sewage are finding their way into water supplies.”

Then they did some other tests, Mr. Speaker.

“Laboratory tests have also determined that water supplies collected from private wells contain a number of chemical constituents in excess of recognized acceptable levels. Sodium was found to be present in concentrations as high as 169 parts per million. Patients on salt-free diets are advised to avoid consumption of water containing more than 50 parts per million sodium. Of 35 samples tested for sodium, 13 had concentrations of 50 parts per million or higher. Phenols were found to be present in concentrations as high as 14 ppb, excluding wells contaminated with gasoline. Phenolic compounds are often responsible for taste and odour problems in water levels as low as one to two ppb.

“This ministry suggests a maximum limit of phenolic compounds in a potable water supply is set at 1.0 ppb. Of the 12 samples tested for phenols, 11 exceeded this limit.”

Then, in conclusion, this is what the Ministry of the Environment report had to say, Mr. Speaker:

“The sampling of the ground water in the Gogama area has revealed chemical constituents present which could be a direct health hazard to the people and other chemicals have been found in the ground water which produced taste and odours in the water. High nitrate concentrations in the ground water appear to pose the most serious health hazard, and this was shown to be widespread throughout the community. For these reasons, there appears to be a very definite need for a communal water supply system in Gogama, which would supply water from a source of acceptable quality to those residents who now use the ground water supply. In view of the questionable quality of the ground water, further development should not be allowed to take place utilizing the ground water supply.”

Mr. Speaker, before I list the recommendations of this report, let me comment on that last statement: “Further development should not be allowed to take place utilizing the ground water supply.” Before this report came out, the Ministry of Housing -- I am not too sure whether the Ministry of Housing was actually created at that point or not -- but the Ministry of Housing had agreed to build some rent-geared-to-income units in the town of Gogama. When this report came out, that, of course, negated the possibility of those units being built. So here we have a contaminated water supply stopping the Ministry of Housing from approving the building of public housing units in the town of Gogama, despite the fact that the Ministry of the Environment has recommended there should be a communal water supply. Quoting again:

“The CNR system is overextended and should be brought up to acceptable standards, if it is to continue to supply potable water to some residents of Gogama.”

Then they made five specific recommendations, Mr. Speaker:

“The ground water-table should be abandoned as a source of water supply in Gogama.

“A communal water supply system should be constructed to serve those residents presently utilizing ground water for a potable supply.

“The CNR water supply system should be upgraded to meet recognized acceptable standards for such a water supply system.

“No further development should take place in Gogama, utilizing private individual ground water supplies.

“The Ministry of Natural Resources and the CNR should be approached by the community to establish that they would be agreeable to incorporating portions of their individual communal waterworks systems into a single system which would provide a basis for supplying the entire community of Gogama.”

Mr. Speaker, that was in November, 1973. We are now in March, almost in April, 1975, and despite repeated pleas to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) to introduce a communal water supply system for all the people in Gogama, nothing is done. There are a number of homes in the town that have a communal water supply besides the CNR one which is adequate. Those are for Ministry of Natural Resources personnel. They have a communal water supply, but it is accepted that the facilities cannot be expanded sufficiently to supply the whole town. The response of the Minister of the Environment, when I wrote to him about a communal water supply, was as follows. I don’t know whether you are familiar with Bill 102 or not, Mr. Speaker. That’s the bill that would provide some kind of recognition to community councils in small communities in northern Ontario without having them obtain full municipal status. Quoting from the minister’s letter:

“When Bill 102 receives third reading, the citizens of Gogama will be able to obtain equivalent status and be eligible to apply to the province to have a provincial waterworks project developed to overcome the inadequacies of the present various water supply arrangements.”

That’s dated October 11, 1974.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on that letter, because Bill 102, as you may or may not know, will be permissive legislation. It will not require every community to create a community council. And, indeed, there are people in some communities who feel that it’s just a back door way of increasing taxation for people who receive very little for the taxes they presently pay.

Mr. Stokes: Very little service.

Mr. Laughren: I’ve supported the concept of Bill 102 as long as it provides a minimum level of services to those communities. Bill 102, in its initial draft, promised not a single thing to the people of the unorganized communities, except that they would have a voice to which the government could listen. But it guaranteed no minimum level of services to those communities.

Here we have the Minister of the Environment saying that if there is going to be any assistance provided in the way of a communal water supply, it will only be if those citizens form a community council under Bill 102.

I don’t call that permissive legislation. That’s holding a gun to the head of the people in Gogama and telling them they must form a community council. They probably will anyway, Mr. Speaker, because they’ve provided some real leadership among the unorganized communities in northeastern Ontario. But that’s not the principle. The principle is that they’re being told they must form a community council if they’re going to solve the water supply problems.

I don’t know how the ministry can sit there with the 1973 report telling it that the levels of contamination are dangerous to the health of the people, and not do anything about it. My leader, when he was talking in this debate, talked about the failure of leadership. Mr. Speaker, who is providing the leadership in this government for the people in the small communities in northern Ontario? There is not a single ministry that seems to give a damn.

We had the Treasurer standing up yesterday in this House talking about a scheme for improvements in Dryden. Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to take one community, such as Dryden, and stand up here and talk about financial aid to the communities. How does the government justify a single community in northern Ontario having that kind of water supply? It is insanity, and nothing is done.

Mr. Speaker, it’s fine for this government to talk about Ontario being a place to stand, but I can tell you, with the kind of sewage disposal systems and the number of outdoor privies in northern Ontario, it’s a cold place to sit at 30 below. This government is very good on catchy phrases, like “a place to stand,” but I’d like to send some of those members opposite up there at 30 below and have them sit outside for a few minutes.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thirty minutes. He’s got problems.

Mr. Laughren: I’m telling you, Mr. Speaker, that some of the lots on which those people live are about 5,000 sq ft, and those lots were purchased from the town many years ago. Since then, of course, legislation has been introduced which makes it a requirement that a lot for a septic system be 15,000 sq ft. I don’t quarrel with that. Of course it should be 15,000 sq ft, particularly in a place like Gogama where there is a very sandy soil. And as a matter of fact, that’s one of the problems. The sewage system has polluted the very high water-table.

But at the same time, the same government which sold them the lots of 5,000 sq ft is telling them they can’t put in a septic system; that they will not provide a communal water supply; and that they are condemned to outdoor privies in 1975. How is that any kind of justice and how is that redressing the imbalances between northern and southern Ontario? Of course it’s not; and we get a little tired of the kind of hollow promises that come forth.

I must say, though, Mr. Speaker, that in the Throne Speech there were no promises for northern Ontario. There was nothing in there that would indicate anything is going to change for the people in northern Ontario who have problems. I can only assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the day is coming when the people in northern Ontario are going to get even with this government.

I’ve talked a little bit about the water supply problems but that’s only one of them. It’s like the other communities in northern Ontario which have no medical services, not even a visiting clinic; not even a railroad car that comes through with a preventive kind of programme to look after the teeth of the children in those schools; there are no periodic visits by a doctor or a nurse practitioner.

There is no reason why clinics could not be established in those communities with a nurse practitioner in residence and with a doctor making periodic visits to that community on a regular basis; no reason at all. Yet nothing seems to happen. In the summertime there are very large numbers of tourists who flock into those areas and there is no service in case of emergency for those people either.

There is ample justification for providing medical services to those communities. I’ve mentioned one town, Gogama, but I could talk about any number of them. There is another small community up there, named Foleyet, that has similar problems. Not the same severity of problems in terms of pollution of the drinking water but equal problems in terms of health care, recreation, no ambulance service at all, inadequate sewage disposal and water supply.

An hon. member: What about fire protection?

Mr. Laughren: There is virtually no fire protection at all. It’s legendary in northern Ontario that in those communities where the Ministry of Natural Resources has an office they provide water or fire protection. Of course, if fire breaks out the Ministry of Natural Resources wheels out its equipment and immediately pours water on all the surrounding frees so that they don’t catch fire. That’s just not good enough but at the present time there is absolutely no money available to unorganized communities for fire protection; none at all, not a penny. The former Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) has promised there will be funds available but I don’t know how long we are going to be given these kinds of promises. So far there is nothing and that is reprehensible.

I do hope that in the years to come, hopefully not too many years the roads system in northern Ontario will be improved. I don’t believe that in many areas the potential for development has even been tapped. As my friend from Timiskaming would know there is a road which goes from Elk Lake to Highway 144, which runs between Sudbury and Timmins. Then that road stops but there is a tremendous potential for a road to be continued toward Chapleau, running through a private forest preserve of the Eddy Forest Products, which would provide enormous potential for development in that area.

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications is already working on a programme to see what would be the best route for a highway through there. I would urge it to get on with it but the vibrations throughout the ministry are that it’s a 15-year programme. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that could be a four- or five-year programme and not a 15-year programme.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that you should use whatever influence you have with this government to ensure that when Bill 102 is introduced later -- hopefully this spring -- there be in it a guarantee of a minimum level of municipal services for those small communities. At the present time it promises nothing and it will not be successful unless the people in those communities see there is a benefit to them in organizing a community council. At the present time, they look at that bill and say, “Where is the benefit to us in this bill?”

It’s a little annoying, Mr. Speaker, to talk during the Throne debate and realize that there are no cabinet ministers in the Legislature at all when these are very serious problems. They are not problems that are entirely parochial in nature. I’m speaking and using examples of specific communities but you need only ask other members of this Legislature who represent northern ridings to be told that they are common throughout northern Ontario. I hope you will pass on our concern to the appropriate cabinet ministers, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to talk about one other issue that has bothered me for some time. I’ve spoken about it at other times in this chamber, and that’s the whole question of sex discrimination in Ontario. This is International Women’s Year and I think we have a right to expect that Ontario would do something in a legislative way, because it is International Women’s Year as declared by the United Nations. But nothing is happening legislatively.

There are some programmes the government has undertaken. I would like to leave that for a moment, though, before I review just what the government is doing and tell the House what I think it should be doing, besides offering women more jobs in liquor stores and striking plaques and putting out glossy pamphlets and opening information booths.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that the whole question of sex discrimination is not a simple problem. It’s one that occurs for a large number of reasons, and it is not solely because there is a Conservative government sitting there that there is sex discrimination in Ontario. We know that it is an economic necessity. Many of my friends in the chamber will disagree with this, but it really is an economic necessity under a capitalist system to have that pool of real or potentially low-paid or unemployed labour in our system.

I realize that the power structure in this province, as in other jurisdictions, is male-dominated, as are the three political parties in this chamber, and as is the civil service as well as the private sector. I realize that society doesn’t move overnight from a male-dominated society to one that recognizes equal rights for everyone. So I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there are simple solutions or that the government in itself can solve the problem overnight. Of course that is not so.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member would have to destroy the capitalist system.

Mr. Laughren: Well, that’s really what it comes down to.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is what he would have to do.

Mr. Havrot: That is his next step.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We don’t have to destroy it. It’s going to destroy itself.

Mr. Laughren: Yes.

Mr. Deans: It is going to destroy itself because of the greed of people like those two members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Havrot: Bring out the hammer and sickle.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you for that interlude, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: What is the member for Timiskaming going to do? Use his doughnuts for wheels on the Ontario Northland?

Mr. Havrot: We’ll stick a doughnut on the member’s nose --

Mr. Deans: Is he going to get the help of his friend here?

Mr. Havrot: -- and stuff a few in his mouth too.

Mr. Deans: That’s the best defence. Is the member for Timiskaming going to respond?

Mr. Havrot: I wouldn’t waste the time of the House with the type of trash we’re listening to.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t doubt that it would be a waste of time if he tried.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will not be provoked. Would he continue his remarks?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: The member for Timiskaming hasn’t said a word in four years.

Mr. Havrot: But I’ve done a lot more than the member has in four years.

Mr. Deans: All he is is a political hack.

Mr. Havrot: I do more than the member does any day of the week.

Mr. Deans: All he is is a political hack -- an appointment to try to hold power for the Tories.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt has the floor. Will the others desist from their remarks, please?

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I needed a drink of water. I will try not to be provocative, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Havrot: He was born that way.

Mr. Deans: Is he still here? Nothing has gone right in Timiskaming since he was elected.

Mr. Havrot: Just go and check the record there.

Mr. Deans: Maple Mountain has gone and the hospital board has resigned just because of him --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. McIlveen: Which one of the NDP has the Toni?

Mr. Deans: -- because he can’t represent them adequately.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member continue?

Mr. Deans: Keep him in order.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t want you to name the member for Timiskaming because he is a useful diversion occasionally.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that under our present economic system there never can be economic equality. I accept that, and that’s one reason I’m working to change the economic system. Let the member for Prince Edward-Lennox have no illusions. That is what it is all about. I’m very happy to say that that is exactly what I am working toward -- that is, changing our economic system.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We can see that. That’s obvious.

Mr. Laughren: Despite the fact we may not be able to achieve equality, improvements can be made. There can be improvements in the delivery of child care facilities in this province and there can be legislation introduced which would, for the first time, provide equal pay for work of equal value. I would ask that you pay particular note to exactly what I am saying, Mr. Speaker: not equal pay for equal work but equal pay for work of equal value, because equal pay for equal work allows employers to set up a system of classification of jobs which negates the whole intent of the legislation of equal pay for equal work.

It can be done; it is difficult to monitor in the beginning, but it can be done. If it’s done carefully at the beginning, it will discourage employers from classifying differently in order to pay differently. There can be incentives built into the legislation to encourage employers to pay equally for work of equal value.

There can be changes in our educational system to remove the kind of sex stereotyping that I want to talk about in some detail.

I’d like to talk about it at some length because I think most people are not aware of how pervasive it is.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to define exactly what I mean by sex stereotyping. The best definition I’ve heard of it comes from a study by Margaret Evans of the language study centre of the Toronto Board of Education. She says:

“Sexism refers to all those attitudes and actions which relegate women to a secondary and inferior status in society. Textbooks are sexist if they omit the actions and achievements of women, if they demean women by using patronizing language, or if they show women only in stereotyped roles and with less than the full range of human interests, traits and capabilities.”

While there is an awareness of what sex stereotyping is, Mr. Speaker, there is very little being done in a comprehensive way. With an assistant, I did considerable research to find out what had been done; and the only comprehensive studies appear to have been done in the United States -- and certainly not Ontario, although there are a number of studies under way.

I contacted a number of people -- and I don’t mean to put down these people who are working on these studies, because they’re working very hard and they are all legitimately concerned about it. We contacted the following groups: The Ministry of Education publications section, Women’s Place; the OISE media group; Canadian Women’s Education Press; the editor of Community Schools; the editor of the Status of Women Newsletter; the librarian at Seneca College; Fiona Nelson, chairperson of the Toronto Board of Education; the president of the Federation of Women Teachers; Margaret Evans, who I mentioned, at the language study centre of the Toronto board; Audrey Hadfield of Surfacing: A Colloquium for Women; Ellen Campbell of OISE; the ad hoc committee respecting the status of women in the north York system; and the curriculum development branch of the Ministry of Education.

All of these people expressed a very legitimate concern -- and I mean that -- but none of these groups was approaching it in a comprehensive kind of way.

To show you the kind of studies that are being done, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you some examples. In July, 1973, Margaret Evans of the language study centre analysed two Ontario Reader Series; “Integrated Language Programmes,” by Ginn and Co., and “Language Experience Reading Programme,” by Gage. In those two studies there are 13 textbooks in all, and all of them are listed on the Ministry of Education’s circular 14, which is the approved list of textbooks. Audrey Hadfield of Surfacing: A Colloquium for Women, surveyed primary school readers used in grades 1 to 4 in Halton county schools and there was also a study on Action English II by Gage.

All three studies showed that the stories and pictures in these textbooks helped to socialize children into conventionally-accepted sex roles. The general conclusion and recommendations arising from these studies are, in Audrey Hadfield’s words:

“While we are aware that many factors must be considered in the selection of school readers, the data obtained from our survey causes us to draw the conclusion that some change must be initiated in the type of literature to which our children are being exposed.”

Mr. Speaker, these people made a careful scrutiny and, indeed, I would say an extensive study of all the elementary school readers. They found, among other pertinent conclusions, that men and women play a far wider role in modem society than the regimented lifestyle pictures of the primary readers would have us believe. That will become clear as I further document the kind of sex discrimination I am talking about.

The solution is not complicated: It is to recommend books on Circular 14 that are non-sexist. It is not a complicated solution. It can be done. There are lists of books now which are not sexist and which could be implemented into the elementary school programme.

There was a comprehensive survey done by the textbook survey group of the regional municipality of York in September, 1972, and the survey, which was named “A Brief on Sex Role Stereotyping in Ontario Primary Readers,” was submitted to the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) in 1972. This was a study of all the elementary school readers and they found, if I can quote their conclusion:

“We realize that textbooks are constantly being re-evaluated and revised and that efforts are being made to make them more relevant and up to date. But we have found no revisions to date concerning the issues mentioned above.”

That’s talking about sex discrimination. To date, Mr. Speaker, nothing seems to have been done by the Minister of Education.

I would like to give you an example of just how extensive sex stereotyping is. There was a research project undertaken by Surfacing, a Colloquium for Women at Oakville, Ont., where they did a survey of the primary school readers as well. I would like to quote from that brief:

“While we are aware that many factors must be considered in the selection of school readers, the data obtained from our survey causes us to draw the conclusion that some change must be initiated in the type of literature to which our children are being exposed. All primary school pupils come into daily contact with school readers, thus a study of the content of these books is considered essential. The early school years represent a crucial stage in the development of attitudes and personality characteristics in the context of the educational process. We therefore consider it imperative that the psychological implications as well as the academic value of school texts be closely scrutinized.

“For the purpose of this survey, every story in the readers listed was read and a brief summary made of the story content describing activities involving males and activities involving females.

“Analysis of the survey clearly shows definite male and female role expectations.

“Boys are portrayed as acting with ingenuity, creativity, resourcefulness, bravery, perseverance, curiosity, adventurousness and autonomy. Their achievements are multidimensional.

“Girls react with passivity, docility, dependency, incompetence, fear, aimlessness, emotion, kindness, thoughtfulness and altruism. Their achievements are rare and uni-dimensional.

“The psychological effects of this stereotyping requires much consideration to evaluate its possible effect on both boys and girls. We are particularly concerned regarding its effect on girls since we consider it to be more damaging to their developing self-concept. The implications of this sex-role stereotyping are far-reaching in their influence on male-female interaction. However, this study does not attempt to explore these implications, rather it is intended to provide specific documented evidence that sex-role stereotyping exists in our school system.

“We have compiled a reference list including articles and books which have thoroughly researched and analyzed the effect of male-female role stereotyping in our society.

“We hope that this survey will lead its reader towards further exploration of this vital issue, with the expectation that collectively we can work towards the elimination of negative and damaging stereotyping as it exists in our school texts.”

Mr. Speaker, those are hopeful conclusions and we have very little reason to believe that the Minister of Education is going to do very much about making that a reality.

I note that we have a substitute Speaker (Mr. McIlveen) in the Chair right now. He’s particularly interested in this problem because he was the chairman of the committee on which I served. I’d like to give members some specific examples of activities that were referred to in that brief. This is in a survey of those elementary readers, and this is an analysis sheet in a research project undertaken by Surfacing: A Colloquium for Women, at Oakville.

These are some of the activities of boys in a book called “Listening Letters,” by Holt, Rinehart and Winston -- Tim and Sam playing baseball; Tim and Sam eating sandwiches on a homemade raft; Ron playing with a spinning top; Tom riding a horse; and Bob playing with a pet pig.

These are the activities of the girls, Mr. Speaker. Pam has a disaster in the kitchen and the dog spills the jam; Babs, playing with a cat in a pram, threatened by a dog, saved by a man; Ann and Jan playing with a cat on a pillow.

In another book called “Laughing Letters” by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ed and Don are fishing; Don catches a fish; Bud goes off to play ice hockey; Ted is sick in bed; Ken is playing with frogs; Bill collects interesting things; Timmy, at camp; meets and helps a dragon; Andy is the best shot in the west; Chuck is visiting at the ranch and riding a horse.

As for the girls in that book, Mom was sitting watching Dad and Tom fish; Kim falls through the ice and is saved by a dog -- these are the girls -- Ann is gathering nuts for granddad; Brenda is sitting waiting for the bus and forgets her money, and her mother arrives with the money; Linda is lost and crying; Big Ed, the policeman, helps her; Jill goes to the circus, and the things she sees are portrayed; Velda swings on a swing in a velvet dress.

In that same book there are several animal stories. To give you an example of how pervasive this thing is, Mr. Speaker, all but three of the animals have male names. There are Ron Rabbit, Rick Rat, Tad Frog, Gus Squirrel, Fred Frog, Nick Skunk, Wilf Bug, Desmond Dragon, Billy Bunny, Robbie Robin, Zak Zebra, Champ the Horse, and Rusty the Fox. The girl names are Thelma the Camel, Wilma the Bug, and Beth the Moth.

Mr. Speaker, there was another book called --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Does the member mean there are more Ron the rabbits than there are Thelma the camels?

Mr. Laughren: No. The point, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of pervasiveness of it, the consistency of it. I hope you will pay attention to this as I go on, Mr. Speaker.

There’s another book called, “Adventures with Mac,” by Holt, Rinehart and Winston. “This book contains only animal stories. There are no females in any of the stories, human or animal.” There is another book, by Holt, Rinehart and Winston again -- and I’m not picking on Holt, Rinehart and Winston; there are other texts as well here -- called “Golden Trails.” We have a boy asking how the world began; a boy practising whistling; Little Brave Heart, the mighty hunter; a boy flying a kite on a high mountain; Johnny falling in the snow and playing with animals in the field. For girls, we have a girl listening to grandmother’s stories, and we have Hilda helping with the household chores, reinforcing the stereotypes again and again.

Another book by Copp Clark is called “Stories Old and New.” We have Peter saves the day by climbing through the window of the locked house; Ronny and Wiggles play in the tree house; Rim gets a dog; Bob shovels snow; Paddy has his three pets; George helps Mom shop; Nick and Donny lose their mittens. There’s a story about Andy and his pets; Zachary and his funny name; George sees spacemen and goes on an adventure; Ronny gets a ride in a helicopter; John makes friends with Mr. Pelgrew, a neighbour.

As for the girls, Janet is scared of a cow; Ann watches fireflies at night; Margaret paints a picture; Miranda plays with kittens; Jean helps Mom shop; and Noisy Nora, no one wanted her.

Here is another book by Copp Clark called, “Stories of Fun and Adventure.” For the boys, Bob and Joe learning about fishing, and they go on a whaling boat; Bill and Juanito hunting coyotes; Ivar finds a moose; Mike, Bill and David find a sick man and get a doctor just in time; Stuey has adventures with invisible ink; Kevin has adventures with Masai in Africa; Danny is at the ranch at branding time; Jeffery saves a little fawn who has got on to the airport runway.

In the case of the girls in “Stories of Fun and Adventure,” Shirley and Alice hold an injured bird for Bill and Juanito while they hunt coyotes; Kirsten adjusting to her new language and school; Helen -- a Scandinavian fairy tale about how she saved the family; and the story of Yvonne, who helps the mayor.

And a couple of final examples by Thomas Nelson and Sons; a book called “Mr. Whiskers”:

“This book features Jack and Jill in various activities up to page 22. Page 22 to 140 deals with Jack’s visit to grandmother. Jill is not mentioned at all.”

Finally, a book by Thomas Nelson and Sons called “Streets and Treasures”:

“Bobby and Billy -- playing in their treehouse.

“Bobby -- a mystery story.

“Bobby -- story about a helicopter ride.

“Tommy -- story of Tommy at the Double B ranch.

“Paul -- at the circus.

“Jeffie -- and the frogs.

“Peter -- a story about Peter who lives in a big city.

“Pierre -- learns how to put a ship in a bottle.”

The girls:

“Penny -- finds a friend.

“Girls -- skipping, choosing shoes.

“Ann -- fun at the circus.”

Those are some of the specific examples of books which reinforce sex stereotyping.

I went from there, Mr. Speaker, to the study done by Margaret Evans at the language study centre at the Toronto Board of Education. They analysed two Ontario reader series -- the Integrated Language Programme, by Ginn and Co., and Language Experience Reading Programme, by Gage, both listed on Circular 14 and containing 13 textbooks in all.

In those series the ratio of boy-centred stories to girl-centred stories was 145 to 42; with an adult main male character versus an adult female main character, 78 to 30; male folk/fantasy stories versus female folk/fantasy stories, 31 to four; male animal stories versus female animal stories, 27 to five; male story titles versus female story titles, 65 to 26; and male illustrations -- get this, Mr. Speaker -- male illustrations versus female illustrations, 369 to 137.

Now here is one that I find really disturbing, and that’s male occupation categories versus female occupation categories. Do you have the time, Mr. Speaker, for me to read this list to you? Thank you.

There were 41 male occupational categories, and I would like to name them to you: Ambulance attendant, automaker, baker, bus driver, butcher, car mechanic, clerk, cobbler, construction worker, cowboy, dairyman, diver, TV cameraman, doctor, electrician, fireman, frogman, fisherman, grocer, helicopter pilot, hockey player, hunter, mayor, miller, Mountie, TV producer, veterinarian, park warden, parson, pilot, policeman, postman, professor, ranch cook, sailor, scientist, sheriff, space pilot, teacher and trapper.

Female occupational categories -- only 11 as opposed to 41 for male -- were artist, ballerina, dressmaker, elevator girl, hairdresser, housewife, maid, nurse, stewardess, store clerk and teacher.

Mr. Speaker, that is really sick. At a time when we are supposed to be removing sex discrimination, doing something about the sex stereotyping in our schools, we have that kind of thing perpetuating the very system that we pretend to be changing. There are other examples too, but that study offers ways that can be removed from our school system as well.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, if I could talk for a moment about another study called “Sex Role Stereotyping in Ontario Primary Readers.” This was submitted to the Minister of Education by the textbook study group of the regional municipality of York in September of 1972. That group discovered basically what other groups who had done research had discovered, and they came to the following conclusions:

“1. The majority of stories and poems have males as their main characters, both human and animal. The more advanced readers in particular have a very high proportion of male-oriented stories. In some stories females are totally absent. In others their appearance is brief and unimportant.

“2. In these books boys lead very active lives, making rockets, going on exploration trips and participating in sports. Girls are passive, watching the boys or playing with dolls, if they are not baking cookies.

“3. Suggestions for career possibilities for boys are numerous, ranging from policeman and ambulance driver to doctor, professor and scientist. Career possibilities suggested for girls are precious few, mainly teacher and nurse.

“4. Women are, in these readers, almost entirely depicted as housewives and mothers, cooking, baking and housecleaning. Men are depicted in a variety of stereotyped roles and these roles are never interchanged.

“5. Working women appearing are, in most cases, single girls. Rarely is the teacher or nurse a married woman. The working mother is totally absent from these books, a very serious omission indeed.

“6. Many stories, especially the more advanced readers, are about animals who show the same stereotyped characteristics and behaviour as humans.” So you can see how that is even reinforced in animal stories, Mr. Speaker.

“7. The illustrations in these books further emphasize the lack of balance in the presentation of male and female characters. Stories and poems which concern boys and girls alike are often illustrations of boys and boys only.”

That study made the following very specific recommendations:

“1. The number of male- and female-oriented stories should be properly balanced.

“2. Girls and women should appear in more active, positive roles.

“3. The books should give a greater variety of career possibilities for girls, including professional careers now depicted solely as careers for boys.

“4. The different roles today’s women play in society should be properly reflected in the texts.

“5. The place of the working mother in contemporary life should be portrayed.

“6. The primary division readers form but a small part of the amount of educational material to which our children are exposed at such an impressionable age. We have good reason to suspect that the situation in regard to this material, be it visual or audio, is much the same as in the readers. We therefore request that all other educational material will be checked and, where necessary, revised in accordance with the principles outlined above.”

Those are some examples, Mr. Speaker, that I hope will be helpful to the government in terms of removing this kind of stereotyping from our schools. It’s time that the Minister of Education regarded the problem in a serious way. There is no indication that he has to date.

I have only talked so far about one aspect of sex discrimination, Mr. Speaker, but, of course, you and I know that there are many more aspects to the problem. In the schools there are the hiring and promotional practices of the school boards. There is also the kind of career counselling that goes on in our school system; in particular, I’m concerned about the kind of career counselling that occurs in the high schools, which needs to be changed dramatically. What better time to implement those kinds of changes, a new change in direction, than in 1975, which, after all, is International Women’s Year?

It’s difficult to talk about International Women’s Year and what the Province of Ontario is doing in the same breath, because they’re almost contradictory. I made some inquiries as to what Ontario is doing in the way of legislation, and it is very disappointing. The government has promised nothing.

Let me suggest very briefly, Mr. Speaker, what the government should be doing. They should be moving aggressively into the provision of childcare centres in Ontario. They should be implementing legislation to guarantee equal pay for work of equal value. There should be a concerted effort to remove sex stereotyping from our elementary school reader texts and to improve the kind of counselling that occurs in our high schools. There should be the banning of advertisements that demean women. There should be an improvement in family property law, as recommended by the Ontario Law Reform Commission over a year ago. There should be legislation to provide collective bargaining and fringe benefits for domestic and part-time workers, the majority of whom tend to be women.

You know, Mr. Speaker, of those six recommendations, the only one that would really cost the government any money is the provision of childcare services. Those of us who have studied the whole question of child care know that it is not a drain on the public purse, that it’s an investment for the future because child care has tremendous benefits as a preventive measure, whether you’re talking about health care or socializing children so that they can better work with peer groups. Child care is a preventive programme and a very positive one, not to be regarded, Mr. Speaker, as a substitute for family care but rather as a supplement to it.

This government tends to regard child care as a custodial programme, primarily for low-income families. I think that’s a mistake. I think child care should be provided for all families and it should be looked on as part of the whole delivery system of educational and social services, not as a welfare programme at all. It should be viewed the way we view elementary education, as a right for children. I think there is an opportunity for this government to provide that kind of service.

We know that the first five years in the development of a child are the critical years. What better time to share the accumulated wisdom and wealth of our society than during those five years so that we can give those children the kind of benefits to which I believe they are entitled?

We know that at the present time there is an increasing number of children living in highrise who need the kind of recreational facilities in childcare centres. We know there are children who are insecure for a number of reasons who could use the socializing influence of a childcare centre. We know there are children from deprived families in an economic sense who could use a childcare centre very positively. For example the only child in a family could use a childcare centre.

At the present time probably 10 to 15 per cent of the real need is being met by the Province of Ontario and only five per cent of that is subsidized. Those are round figures, of course. Even now, for parents who can afford child care there is no range of alternatives; there is no choice.

Mr. Speaker, I thought carefully before I decided to say this, but it’s really ironic that Ontario’s first woman cabinet minister would end up being a millstone around the necks of women in this province. I find that very sad. She has almost single-handedly managed to sabotage the day nurseries branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party would place a great deal of emphasis on child care because we recognize it as a social need and we recognize it as being essential as a preventive measure for emotional problems, for health problems and for social problems. We believe it would be an investment that would pay enormous dividends in our elementary, our secondary and even our post-secondary educational system.

I think that tends to be overlooked very often. We recognize that if we are going to improve the quality of education and the quality of the graduates in our educational system, we have to start at the beginning or close to the beginning.

It’s not good enough to say “bring in the three Rs,” or the strap. That’s a mindless kind of debate, because what people really mean are four Rs, Mr. Speaker. They mean reading, writing, arithmetic and rote. They are really talking about memorization and discipline, and I think that’s not the answer.

I believe we must start at the childcare level at the pre-school age and make improvements from the bottom up. Only then will we end the problems of alienation in the classroom which I believe are occurring now. I left the secondary school system as a teacher because I encountered that. I believe it is occurring increasingly and that’s the real problem in our educational system.

Only when this problem of alienation is ended will the whole question of free tuition at the post-secondary level really have meaning. At the present time, the way our system works it is primarily -- not entirely, but primarily -- children of middle upper-income families who are able to get a post-secondary education now.

I really see the debate over the school system very often as being misdirected. Surely education must be a liberating experience, Mr. Speaker. How does imposed discipline or memorization or the strap liberate anyone -- teacher or student? Self-discipline is different; I’m not talking about self-discipline, but I believe that the value of self-discipline will never be realized in our system, never even be perceived by students until the education they receive is truly a liberating experience. That’s difficult to implement; I don’t deny that for a moment but I think we have to start working toward that and toward a different kind of educational system.

The place to start it all, which got me off on this diversion of education, is at the child-care level. I think with proper teacher training and an emphasis on elementary education and learning as a student centre, education will be something to be shared between teacher and student. The place to begin all that is at the childcare centre, with proper staff.

If we think the dropout rate in our high schools is bad, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it’s a lot worse at the community college level. At last count there was an attrition rate of somewhat over 50 per cent. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, a New Democratic Party government would move aggressively into the provision of child care.

Before I get too carried away with that, Mr. Speaker, having now gone through what should be done to remove sex discrimination in Ontario let me tell you what the Province of Ontario is doing. These are the highlights. You can imagine what the more mundane programmes are if these are the highlights.

No. 1. A Premier’s meeting with management and labour with a follow-up programme to promote and encourage equal employment opportunities for women on the move.

No. 2. The recognition of outstanding women in the province who have led the way for women on the move.

No. 3. Grants to organizations for projects designed to improve the status of women on the move.

No. 4. Information units staffed by students to provide information about Ontario government programmes which relate to the needs of women on the move.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to need very many information units to tell the people of Ontario what this government is doing.

No. 5. Government ministries and Crown agencies to develop innovative projects for women on the move.

That’s what the Province of Ontario is doing. No talk about legislation. No talk about anything meaningful at all; just a bunch of glossy brochures.

Mr. Speaker, I will wind up my remarks now but I do hope you will convey my concern to your government about the lack of action particularly on the part of the Minister of Education but also the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth), and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) --

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): The Minister of Education is on a three-week vacation, is he not?

Mr. Laughren: -- and their failure to take any positive action on removing the kind of discrimination that now occurs in the Province of Ontario. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Phil Gaglardi was asked what caused the defeat of the Social Credit government in BC in 1972. Phil, members will remember, was that flamboyant and controversial Minister of Highways in W. A. C. Wacky Bennett’s regime.

An hon. member: Blind Phil.

Mr. Good: In reply, he said that any government can antagonize and alienate a certain number of people and still remain in office but when it reaches the point where it has antagonized more than half the population it is obviously going to be voted out of office.

He made this reply on a morning radio programme in Toronto about a year ago last December and this statement coincided with the time when our Minister of Education in the Province of Ontario had just insulted and alienated the teachers of the province by bringing in Bill 274. In fact, the minister had, so to speak, called out the authorities when no crime had been committed. Unfortunately, we have this unfortunate attitude which now exists among the educators in this province toward the Province of Ontario and the Minister of Education. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that was the apparent beginning of public resentment toward this government and the way it treats people. One group after another has been alienated by the actions or inaction of this government. In most instances, the problem has arisen because of lack of consultation; not communication, but consultation. What this government calls consultation is usually nothing more than the presentation of decisions already made.

This was apparent in the legislation dealing with the travel agencies. Admittedly, this was necessary and by and large good legislation, perhaps misunderstood by the industry. But the government thought that talking to one or two representatives here in Toronto would be considered as consultation by travel agencies all across the province.

The real estate industry had to appeal en masse to every member of this Legislature to have its views heard, as another example of how the Davis government operates to create a lack of confidence in government.

Coupled with these examples are the deep-rooted feelings of discontent that already existed over the Fidinam affair, the “Hydrogate” hearings, the Workmen’s Compensation Board investigation, the Shouldice shenanigans, and the whole matter of contracts without tenders. It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that people are concerned about the whole concept of integrity in government. I believe they are quite prepared to believe that, in fact, a political tollgate exists in the Tory party.

Mr. Speaker, I find there is a great group of people in Ontario who have been turned off for quite another reason. I speak of the huge population of Ontario which is unhappy with the imposition of regional government and how it was done. I would like to spend a few minutes on the reasons why there is almost complete mistrust and concern about regional governments.

Mr. Speaker, the function of government in the democratic society is to serve people, and this has always been done on a tri-level basis. The lowest level, the municipal government, has been the one to which citizens can most easily relate. It is there that the people feel they have access. Thus the services which are closest to the people must be served by the lower-tiered municipal government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on record some of the thoughts of Dr. Martin Dobkin, the mayor of Mississauga. He states that municipal councillors, by being required to sit on two councils, the local and the regional, are immediately put into positions of conflict. At the regional government level, the councillor is constantly being told by the regional chairman that he must think in terms of the region. Yet how can he vote on a local issue in his own municipality when the regional point of view is contrary to his local position? Indeed, it does create problems. Since no one municipality in a region has a majority vote on the regional council, it is entirely possible for decisions to be made which affect everyone in the local municipality, even though all of the council members from that municipality are in opposition to that decision.

Then it is interesting to ask what recourse the electors have at election time. They cannot vote out of office the regional officials from outside their local municipality.

I feel another major problem is that some of the regions encompass too large an area. Some parts of these regions bear no relationship either in function or form to other areas of that region. Because of this, councillors from one end of the region do not know the other areas and the issues of those area governments or the people living in the areas.

Thus, we have a situation where regional councillors are making decisions for people whom they do not know. But they also realize that they cannot be voted out of office at election time by the people in the other areas of the region concerned. It is a serious undermining of one of the basic democratic principles -- that elected people must be accountable for their decisions and directly accountable to the people for whom they are making the decisions.

Much of the misgiving and apprehension about regional government is created by the costs involved. This not only involves a startup cost but the ongoing cost. The small fraction of startup cost borne by the provincial government lays an ever-increasing burden upon the local level. We have seen over the past two years, Mr. Speaker, that increased provincial grants to the municipalities have lessened to some degree the tax burden in not only regional but other municipalities.

Fair warning has been given by the provincial Treasurer and his predecessor (Mr. White) that the province can no longer support the local tax base and we can expect drastic increases in taxes in the year 1975. From an opposition point of view, this mismanagement by government couldn’t come at a more opportune time than in an election year. When local municipalities get their tax bills, they will be more determined than ever to throw this government out of office.

Mr. Gaunt: It is next to gone.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): That’s not right.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): What about the subsidies we pay?

Mr. Carruthers: The member knows that isn’t right.

Mr. W. Hodgson: What about the subsidies the province pays to the municipalities?

Mr. Good: There is, Mr. Speaker, another aspect of regional government which is distasteful. That is that the regional chairmen for the first term -- or terms, in some instances -- are appointed by the provincial government as well as paid by the provincial government.

I have expressed my concern before regarding the appointed regional chairmen, being a dangerous concentration of appointed power in the hands of a small number of people. The appointed regional chairmen meet at Queen’s Park and they have met privately. They are likely discussing issues and policies which affect millions of people. The press and public are not privy to these discussions.

The province, I feel, by using the regional chairmen as a vehicle, can find it much easier to sell its policies and ideas to a large number of people at the municipal level.

These regional chairmen -- or second cabinet, if one wishes to speak in those terms; or an arm of Queen’s Park -- cannot even be directly voted out of office. I strongly recommend, Mr. Speaker, that every regional chairperson should be elected on a regional basis by the people of the region.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Right; dead on.

Mr. Good: Many feel that regional government has meant a serious loss of local autonomy for the local level of government.

Mr. Gaunt: It got to change the name of Durham, too.

Mr. Good: Particularly it has downgraded the status of the role of elected mayors. No matter how competent a regional chairman or chairperson may be, there is still the feeling among the people of the region that that person is an extension or an arm of Queen’s Park. The local people just don’t know what is going on between that person and Queen’s Park.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): That’s terrible.

Mr. Good: At a meeting at Mississauga city hall, a resolution was passed to establish a forum for the elected heads of councils in Ontario to discuss and act upon common problems, particularly those involving the erosion of powers of local governments in regional areas. This meeting concentrated on many issues reflecting the diminishing powers of local councils and strongly criticized the government-appointed chairmen of regional councils as well as the fact that mayors could not become regional chairmen without first resigning as mayors.

Mr. Lionel Feldman, a municipal affairs expert, told the meeting that the question of power within the region and the local government structure is one of great import, especially in view of the fact that public pressure for a new philosophy of involvement in the policy-making process is now prevalent all across the province.

Citizens’ groups feel they have better access to governments at the lower level. If one approaches the provincial government, one has to carry an extremely big stick; if one approaches the regional government, one has to have a big stick; when one gets down to the local level, one feels he can be heard. But under our present setup so little power is left at the local level that people find they are almost hamstrung over being able to make their voice and ideas heard effectively by the decision-makers.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, with Dr. Dobkin that certain types of services must be regional in scope but I am thoroughly convinced that masses of people feel they have lost all contact with decision-makers because very little authority is left at the local level. The government, of course, realizes that something has gone seriously wrong with its structuring of local government. It has now indicated there will be no more regional governments formed at this time. The same cry went forth before the last provincial election.

An hon. member: What about the counties?

Mr. Good: The future growth of Ontario is indeed jeopardized by the government’s inability to cope with the growth, and to bring in acceptable policies.

The government, Mr. Speaker, has refused to bring in broad-brush plans for the whole of Ontario. They’ve undoubtedly violated the Toronto-centred region plan that was held forth to be the great be-all and end-all of planning in the Toronto area, and in the south-central part of Ontario.

They have refused or have been unable to attract growth into eastern and northern Ontario. They have procrastinated in the revision of the Planning Act. They have now allowed Hydro to bring in a plan of industrialization of all of southwestern Ontario; and, Mr. Speaker, the seriousness of this policy cannot be over-emphasized.

Southwestern Ontario is the best agricultural area in Canada. There is nothing comparable to it. There has never been a crop failure. There have never been extended drought periods. The top 6 in. of topsoil cannot be replaced, and yet we see Hydro imposing on southwestern Ontario new energy corridors which can only lead to more and more industrialization.

It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that corn and asphalt don’t make very good crop rotations. I am firmly convinced, Mr. Speaker, that there is plenty of land in Ontario on which to build houses and factories without consuming vast quantities of class 1 and class 2 farm land.

Serious attempts must be made to develop areas where agriculture is not the prime use of the land. This, of course, can only be accomplished within guidelines of a provincial plan for development. The government’s failure in these areas has, of course, been a major factor in the establishment of public opinion, which is now noticeably against the Davis government.

The beautiful part of it, Mr. Speaker -- looking at it from the opposition’s point of view -- is that there’s no one single thing you can put your finger on. It’s an accumulation of many things that have been built up -- lack of action and over-reaction -- which has caused this discontent and created the favourable polls for the Liberal Party in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to deal with two more items, both of which are related to the Ministry of Health. They are to some extent parochial matters.

First of all, I would briefly like to refresh our minds of the fact that the nursing home situation in Ontario changed dramatically a few years ago. I’m referring to the closing of the many smaller homes, and the concentration on larger establishments. The upgrading of standards was no doubt necessary, but many of us at the time felt that small nursing homes were being closed down more because of the fact that they couldn’t provide 70 sq ft per bed, rather than being accredited on the amount of care that was given patients.

The upheaval in the nursing homes at that time was quite a traumatic experience for many of the small owners. They then had to decide whether to get out of the nursing home business or continue as retirement homes, or borrow enough capital to upgrade their standards and to become large enough -- if they could convince the minister they were capable of doing that.

At present there are about 25,000 nursing home beds in the Province of Ontario. The maximum allowable charge per standard ward as of April 1 -- these are the new rates -- is $18.50. Of this, the government, under its OHIP extended-care programme, pays $12.60 and the patient pays $5.90. The government, under semi-private, will continue to pay $12.60 and the patient will pay $9.40. For private, the government OHIP plan will still pay $12.60 and the patient will be required to pay $12.90.

I’d also like, Mr. Speaker, to speak about the need for more nursing home beds in the region of Waterloo. There have been applications for increases in licensing before the ministry for the past two years. On March 17 I asked the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) the following question:

“How does the minister justify his allotment of about 3.2 nursing home beds per 1,000 population, especially in an area such as the Waterloo region where there are waiting lists at every nursing home within the region?”

The minister replied:

“Mr. Speaker, the provincial guideline, I think, is 3.5 beds per 1,000.” My research figures show that to be correct. There are about 25,000 beds in the province and when we divide that into roughly eight million people it works out to about 3.5 beds per thousand of population. “This was an estimation of need, not a proven indicator, because of course until it became an insured benefit no one could be certain what the real needs would be.

“We have been increasing the number of nursing home beds pretty fast. We have 25,000 right now.” I checked that figure against the January, 1975, list of nursing homes in Ontario and I find that figure to be correct. “We have about 3,000 under construction right now. Apart from that, there are between 10,000 and 12,000 beds in homes for the aged in Ontario where people are receiving extended-care OHIP benefits. So in fact we have almost as many nursing home beds available for patients in Ontario today as there are active treatment beds.

“Now in any given area we try to weight the number of beds against the age of the population, because after all the primary people using them are those over 65.

“This isn’t always an indication because in some parts of rural Ontario people tend to stay at home, tend to stay active and therefore under-utilize them; so in the final analysis we try to tailor the licences to the waiting list.”

So he is giving me both answers. First he says they weight it on the age of the people in the area; then he tells me that they try to provide the number of beds in relation to the waiting list.

“It is not always an easy thing to do and I can assure members that the demand will continue to outstrip the supply, because people are leaving homes and coming into the institutions once the facilities are made available.”

I would like to speak for a moment just on the 3,000 beds that the minister says are under construction. The list of nursing home beds for the Waterloo region shows there are 3.4 beds per thousand, which is just a little tinder the minister’s acknowledged 3.5 beds per thousand. There are also 36 new beds which have been approved for the Waterloo region. The population of the Waterloo region is about 270,000. We have had approval for 36 or 38 new beds.

On a population basis of 270,000 we should, in fact, be getting about 101 additional nursing home beds in the Waterloo region, rather than only the 38 which are now under approval. So we are really only getting about one-third of what we should be getting of the 3,000 new beds that have been approved. This is seriously going to affect the Waterloo region in light of the fact that already there are waiting lists in almost every nursing home within the region.

I would like to refer now, Mr. Speaker, to the number of beds per thousand in the various areas across the province, and the wide discrepancy of location of nursing home beds is unbelievable. The minister’s parliamentary assistant has used as his main argument for turning down additional approval the fact that the Waterloo region already has the provincial average of about 3.4 or 3.5. The argument doesn’t hold water at all when we look at the list. I have figured out the number of beds per thousand in every region across the province and it varies, Mr. Speaker, from 1.4 nursing home beds per thousand in Algoma to a high of 14.9 beds per thousand in Prince Edward county. There are 13 beds per thousand in Prescott and Russell as against 3.5 in the provincial average and 3.3 in Waterloo; in Timiskaming, six beds per thousand; and in Renfrew 1.02 beds per thousand. It’s hard to understand why there can be such a wide variation.

I understand the city of Sudbury region is shown as 3.9 beds per thousand, but I understand that there are ample beds in that area. I understand that some of the beds had to be filled by persons with other disabilities in order to utilize the beds of the large corporate nursing homes which had been given licences to construct them.

The need varies greatly across the province and the number of beds varies greatly across the province, all the way from 1.4 beds per thousand to 14.9 beds per thousand. I don’t see how the minister can use as the excuse for a rejection of applications the fact that certain areas have more than the provincial average. I won’t take the time to read it into the record, but the variation is very great. Many of them are over four beds per thousand. Lanark is 6.6; Grey county is 6.6; Halton is only 2.2; Wellington is 4.4 -- and so it goes from a few beds to a great many beds per thousand.

I would like to return, Mr. Speaker, and put into the record a letter received by myself from the parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for London North (Mr. Walker), who is in charge of the matters of approval for nursing home beds. This letter happened to relate to an application by the Maryhill nursing home in the Waterloo region. He said:

“Maryhill nursing home is well known to the ministry. I believe it was a convent which was converted, if I remember correctly. The matter appeared on the agenda of the nursing home review committee back in April, 1974, just after I had arrived in ministry. The request was to increase the licensed capacity from 21 beds to 53 beds with the building of an addition. The matter was very carefully considered by the nursing home review committee on April 30 and, reluctantly, a decision was arrived at which would not permit a go-ahead for this particular request.

“At that time, and at this point in time as well, the current ratio of beds for population was in excess of the ministry’s guidelines as to beds per thousand. In fact, compared to other counties or regions, the regional municipality of Waterloo is blessed to some extent with more beds in comparison.”

That, Mr. Speaker, is just not a fact, because a wide range of beds per thousand of population has been shown all across the province, and it is just not right to say that we have more beds than other areas in the province. We may have in some instances, but others have three times as many beds per thousand as the Waterloo region has. His letter goes on:

“In addition, we are bound by the financial constraints imposed upon us for overall medical care and perhaps therein lies the problem. These financial constraints are such that we only have enough money to accommodate those areas which by comparison are far less bedded in ratio to population than is Waterloo. For those reasons, the minister, on the advice of the nursing home review committee, came to the conclusion that an award of beds increasing the licence from 21 to 52 beds would not be in the public interest, given the financial constraints under which the ministry was operating at the time, and still is even to a greater extent, and given the current bed ratio of the regional municipality of Waterloo compared to other regions.

“I would say that with the 36 beds presently on approval in the area once on stream, any of the apparent deficiencies in the area will to a large extent be eliminated.”

Mr. Speaker, that is not so because with the 3,000 new beds being approved in the province the Waterloo region should, in fact, get 101 of those. Instead we’re getting 36.

The nursing home review committee is an inter-ministerial, inter-disciplinary committee on which I served, along with a number of ministry officials who advise the minister on any one application. Representatives of the nursing home inspection branch, institutional standards division, the financial branch and the area planning co-ordinator serve on the committee. This committee advises the minister and on the basis of that advice the minister comes to a conclusion on any individual application. He then instructs the appropriate official to communicate with the applicant as to whether approval or rejection or modification is given.

I’m sure, off the record, the ministry would simply say to the member, to me, “We can’t provide you with any more hospital beds because it’s going to cost the provincial government about $4,000 per year per bed to cover those beds under extended care.”

Mr. Speaker, if those beds are being filled by patients from hospitals it undoubtedly will be a great saving to the Province of Ontario. I was amazed to read in our local paper just a few weeks ago that the active bed rate in the K-W hospital was now somewhere around $115 per day. It is unbelievable. Here we find that nursing home care can be given to patients at a cost, which is the new cost as of April 1, of about $12.60 -- the total cost to the government -- the rest being paid by the patient.

I think there is something amiss along the line, either in the thinking or the planning by the government when it does not give higher financial priority to the adequate provision of nursing home beds in all parts of the province. Certainly there has been something wrong in the planning when there is a surplus in some areas and a great need in other areas.

I think what has happened, in my own view, is that at the changeover the ministry was so anxious to get rid of the small operators and get the large corporate operators into being that in some areas it was over-expanded by the large corporate operators. In other areas it closed down the small ones without making adequate provision. I don’t think that is any way to look after the nursing home problems in the Province of Ontario.

I trust that someone in the ministry will pay some heed to the matters I’ve brought up this morning. Since there is no one here, neither the minister nor his parliamentary assistant, I will forward excerpts of my remarks to fortify the cases of the several nursing home operators in my area who are having absolutely no success with their applications for increased nursing home accommodation.

There is one other matter which involves the Ministry of Health and which I’d like to make a few short remarks about. That is the need for a dialysis unit at the Kitchener-Waterloo hospital. There are quite a number of people in the Kitchener-Waterloo area who require dialysis two or three times a week. Many people have been able to make the trip to Toronto, on that basis, to have this process done. Others who can afford it have their own dialysis units.

We have been working on this problem for three or four years and now find that located in the “twin cities” are doctors or urologists who are familiar with this work and are specialists in it. The board has approved the location of a unit within the hospital and the matter is now before the Ministry of Health awaiting either approval or rejection of this plan. I understand the original cost of a dialysis unit is not all that great but the yearly maintenance of the unit is a considerable cost and, of course, would be a drain on any hospital budget unless additional financing is received from the provincial level.

I believe, in fact I know, that many within the area, those who have formed an association, who require this treatment are active in trying to explain the need. The ministry has gone on record that it is seriously looking into the matter. They envisage a dialysis unit in the “twin cities” area for serving that part of southwestern Ontario, and in their view it would be affiliated with Wellesley Hospital in Toronto.

People who require this treatment have assured me that it is most important that something be done to bring the service to a local level. It is at present not only inconvenient, but could be a serious endangerment to health. Even those who have their own equipment can have a breakdown of equipment, and the nearest place for servicing and to be dialysed is in the city of Toronto.

I would ask that the ministry give very serious consideration to this application now before them. They should accede to the wishes of those unfortunate people in the area who require this service, the hospital board which has approved it, and Dr. Evans, the medical officer of health of the region, who has been actively engaged in pursuing this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have about 17 items that I would like to deal with. However, I’ll manage to restrain myself and confine it to four or five. I think that the Throne Speech is the finest piece of literary bafflegab that I have encountered in my four years in the Legislature. It is undoubtedly the weakest and most disappointing speech that we have heard.

There was absolutely no mention of northern Ontario in the speech anywhere. And there was no indication that the government recognizes the very real regional disparities that exist in Ontario. And I want to deal with that aspect of the speech very briefly, Mr. Speaker.

What could the people of northwestern Ontario have justifiably expected from the Speech from the Throne?

I feel that the government should have given some indication that it recognized the need of northern Ontario municipalities for additional revenues from the province to upgrade the services for people in our communities -- services such as housing.

The government should have indicated that it had under way long-range planning, as well as some immediate action, to meet the environmental concerns of the people of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario; especially in view of the heavy industrial complex planned for our area and in view of the present concern over the drinking water supply in Thunder Bay. None of that was mentioned.

The government should have indicated in the speech an understanding of the need for increased medical services for our region, especially dental programmes, home care services, nursing home facilities and senior citizen housing.

Finally, with regard to the north, the government should have given an indication that it planned a real attack on the problems of mine safety in northern Ontario.

The government in the Speech from the Throne failed in all four of these very important areas, and we must now wait until April 7 to see if the budget of the Ontario government is as shallow as was the Speech from the Throne. For the sake of the people of northern Ontario, let us hope not.

I would like to turn now specifically, Mr. Speaker -- and I am glad that you yourself are in the chair -- to three items I would like to raise dealing directly with your office. I do this very carefully and with some reluctance. But it is a matter I have raised to some degree in the House before and I would like to raise again. It has to do with the page programme under the Speaker’s office.

I raised two matters last fall during the supplementary estimates, and I don’t know if they have been brought directly to your attention. That’s why I am pleased that you are in the chair at the present time. I think that we should set an example in the Legislature and through the Legislature in your office, Mr. Speaker, with the page programme in three important areas.

Although the pages are under the official working age in the province, I think that we should set a benchmark for the province and pay them the minimum wage. I think they do a fine job for us. I think that they are entitled to it. And certainly the kind of work that they do is a valuable service to the members and that we should give that some very serious consideration.

Another area that I would like the Speaker to give attention to is --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): No discrimination.

Mr. Foulds: That is the third area I was going to get to. The second area is the area of expense allowances for the pages.

I would suggest that those pages who have to travel from more than a 150-mile radius of the city of Toronto be given additional expenses to travel back and forth from their home towns to the Legislature. As you know, Mr. Speaker, at the present time if a page comes from my riding, from the city of Thunder Bay or from Windsor or Ottawa or Sudbury or Winisk in the riding of Thunder Bay, they must pay their own travel expenses in terms of plane fare to the Legislature and back. They must do that for a uniform fitting before the session takes place, for the session itself and for any trips that they want to take home on the weekends.

I would suggest that we establish a fund for the expenses for the fitting that takes place before they do their tour of duty and for three trips -- one of the actual tour and one or two during the tour of duty -- back home to their home towns. I think that if we really want to talk about accessibility of the programme and we want to make it accessible to people across the province, we should be willing to take those steps.

Mr. Speaker: May I just interrupt to say much of that has been done.

Mr. Foulds: It has been done and will be in effect? That’s good news.

The final point that I want to make on this subject is that, as I understand it, there still is a discrimination against girls in the page programme in that we still maintain that the balance of the 20 pages in any tour are 12 boys and eight girls. I think that once again the Speaker’s office in this Legislature should set the benchmark for the province and establish a balance of 10 and 10 -- 10 girls and 10 boys in the programme -- to demonstrate to other industries and other government departments that we believe in equality of opportunity for women, and that we can start with the page programme of the Legislature.

I would like to turn now to the thoughts of a member who has endured this place for four years now and make a few observations about the governing party of this province. For 32 years, Mr. Speaker, one party with a succession of leaders, all of them surprisingly more or less the same, has governed Ontario -- Drew, Frost, Robarts, Davis. Only the names have changed to protect the guilty. Fundamentally, all four were comfortable in corporate boardrooms of the province. Fundamentally, all of them were and are, and the present premier is, uncomfortable in the democratic battleground of the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Carruthers: All very highly respected.

Mr. Foulds: All of them, with the support of the obscure member for Durham, have tried to manipulate, muzzle, or seduce the Legislature for their own purposes. And for all their public relations, their purposes are not the purposes of the ordinary working men and women of this province. Even less has it been their purpose to serve the needs of the disabled of our society.

Mr. Carruthers: Oh, wait a moment.

Mr. Foulds: I get between 60 and 100 phone calls and/or letters from individual constituents almost every week. Every one of these people is in actual distress because of some kind of problem with the provincial government -- compensation, land subdivision, OHIP, social assistance, student loans, education taxes, bad highways, you name it, Mr. Speaker.

The ones who cause me more anguish and more heartbreak than I can adequately describe are the ones who call and say in one way or another, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes simply, sometimes angrily, “Mr. Foulds, I don’t have enough to live on. I can’t make ends meet.” Maybe they’re on compensation for an accident suffered some 15 years ago when their rates were set. Inflation has so eaten into their incomes that they can no longer support growing families. Often they are not elderly men or women. They are men and women in their 30s and early 40s with responsibilities for growing children. Some of those who call are women in their 50s, whose husbands have died and who are classified as unemployable but not disabled so they are eligible neither for GAINS benefits nor for the improved social and family services benefits.

Or maybe the people who call me are simply like the man who made an application for social and family service benefits in mid-January and almost two months later received only this computerized reply:

“We wish to advise that your application for a benefit under the Family Benefits Act has been received by this branch. You will appreciate that many applications are being received and a certain amount of unavoidable delay may be experienced.

“Your application will be dealt with as soon as possible and when the decision has been reached, you will be notified by mail. If there should be a change in circumstances from those reported in the application or should you change your address, leave Ontario or become a patient in a hospital, sanitorium, nursing home, etc., please notify your field worker immediately, quoting the file number shown on this card.”

I am told by my colleague, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), the NDP spokesman on community and social services, that sometimes the average time for processing applications under the Family Benefits Act runs between three and six months. What kind of response is that by government to people who are often in dire need?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, maybe those people, those 60 to 100 people who call me or contact me every week, are like the woman whose case came to my attention about a month ago now. She doesn’t speak English. Therefore she made an inquiry through Ontario 20 of the citizens’ inquiry branch of the provincial government. Because she lives in my riding, I got a copy of the report. It went like this:

“She requests assistance in obtaining financial assistance for her husband and herself. She also requests that arrangements for payment be made to pay for her husband’s funeral expense when he passes away. She has provided the citizens’ inquiry branch with the following information:

“In 1960, her husband suffered head injuries in a forest accident. In 1969, he was again involved in a forest accident and was left disabled after a tree fell on him. He has been unable to work since then. He has been receiving $62.50 a month, presumably from the WCB. Two months ago this amount was adjusted to $74.50 a month.

“On Nov. 25, 1974, it was discovered that he had terminal cancer. The wife asked the Workmen’s Compensation Board if they would pay for her husband’s funeral expenses when he passes away. However, she was told that they would not. She says that the cancer is located on the side of her husband’s body which received the injuries in the forest accident in 1969.

“They do receive assistance from social services. Their social worker informed the woman that their benefits would be reduced because her husband was now in hospital. The woman herself suffers from rheumatism and takes large amounts of medication.

“During the summer of 1974, she lost a thumb and has no feeling in her hand as the result of an operation. Previous to this, she was able to work as a domestic and cleaning lady. Now she is unable to do that.”

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, in my view unless there is some way on the part of the government, of meeting the human needs of these people, it is not a government worthy of the name.

The answer the Workmen’s Compensation Board gave that woman -- that she was not eligible for funeral benefits under the Act -- is technically correct but in human terms, Mr. Speaker, what does that say about this government? What does that say to a woman who does not speak English?

What it says is that this government is unable to come to grips with problems like that in our society. Unless this government can meet that human need, it is not a government worthy of the name.

In 32 years the Conservative Party has built up an incredible network of friends to whom it owes favours. It has built up an entrenched bureaucracy which won’t listen, or can’t listen, because years of political power have made it arrogant and insensitive. It is an old political cry, but it is a true one in. Ontario in 1975: It is time for a change, a change to an NDP government because only an NDP government is committed to the kind of fundamental change which will provide for the solutions to the human problems of this province.

Mr. Carruthers: We have seen enough of that.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I’m glad the member agrees.

Mr. Foulds: These human problems will certainly not be solved by either the Liberal or the Conservative parties. They will not be solved by giving low-interest government loans to impecunious multinational corporations to overexpand hotel facilities in Thunder Bay, which has been happening recently. Nor will they be solved by a few election handouts. Nor will they be solved by replacing “Bob Davis” with “Bill Nixon.” Frankly, I find it very laughable that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the Liberals can try to make, as their major election theme, integrity in government. Frankly, what is the use of integrity in government if we don’t have humanity in government?

The hon. member for Carleton East quoted approvingly several articles by the Globe and Mail’s resident Queen’s Park columnist, Norm Webster. The Norm Webster column I like goes like this:

“While the Liberals bask in their self-esteem these days, the New Democrats are carrying the fight on the issues. Most of the skirmishes are stamped with the NDP trademark -- exhaustive research, devastating attack and solid follow-through. The party’s leader, Stephen Lewis, is doing what an opposition leader should be doing, grabbing public wrongs and shoving them in the government’s face.”

And then later on in the article Mr. Webster points out a concrete example. He says:

“There was a good example yesterday. Mr. Lewis appeared before the Ham commission on health and safety in Ontario mines and presented a devastating indictment of government and industry in action. The striking thing about the document was not the Lewis rhetoric, but the detailed research.

“Last Thursday, Mr. Lewis came to the House despite a severe case of the flu to deliver his windup speech of the session. He devoted it to a detailed indictment of the government’s performance on occupational health. Again, it was research, attack and follow-through.

“In an interview, Mr. Lewis said, ‘The NDP wants a focus of its own; one which contrasts with the other parties; one concentrating on human issues and illustrated in human terms with real examples. We want to get away from the vindictiveness and personal attacks. I think the Liberals are making a mistake with the line they are taking.’”

Later on in the article, Mr. Webster goes on to say: “He” -- Mr. Lewis -- “would have felt good if he’d been in Windsor about 10 days ago for the Liberal policy conference. In the midst of the desultory policy session one question woke everybody up. It came from a lady who wondered why it was Mr. Lewis and the NDP who had brought up the Johns-Manville affair. ‘Why wasn’t it the Liberals?’ she asked. ‘Should we be taking our problems to Stephen Lewis?’”

I want to tell that Liberal lady, Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, she should be taking her problems to Stephen Lewis and the New Democratic Party, because only the New Democratic Party is concerned enough to talk about the human issues in this forthcoming election campaign.

I’m sure all of us in this chamber and people across the province have noticed that the government is taking a hard line these days. But isn’t it curious how the government’s loud protestations about restraint in spending are confined almost exclusively to the social development field? And they are especially loud about restraint and spending on hospitals and education.

It boils down to what they consider to be their priorities. About three or four weeks ago the Conservative government of this province could suddenly find $100 million to bail out those timid and impoverished multinational corporations, such as Gulf and Imperial Oil, in the Syncrude tar sands project. But the provincial government is either unwilling or unable to find the money, for example, to adequately finance Lakehead University. It is unable or unwilling to find the money to meet the human needs of the people whose cases I cited a few moments ago, or of many of the other 60 to 100 people who desperately tried to contact the member for Port Arthur.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, in the next few months, as the Liberals and Conservatives carry out an acrimonious mud-slinging campaign against each other throughout Ontario, we in the NDP will be laying out policy after policy in human terms to meet the human needs of the people of Ontario. New Democrats, you see, Mr. Speaker, see poverty not as a state merely to be endured or to be made endurable, as the current social programmes of both the federal Liberals and the provincial Conservatives do. We see poverty as a state to be eliminated, and we see and we firmly believe that people have to have a direct voice in determining their own destiny, not simply to serve in the cheering section.

“For example, we reject utterly the view expressed by an Ontario Hydro official as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of March 4. The headline of the story was this: “Hydro Official Urges Public Participation Be Limited.” And the article goes on to say this:

“‘The public should have a voice only in Ontario Hydro work that is at least a decade away, not the projects required right now,’ a Hydro executive said yesterday. ‘The public voice in Hydro planning is delaying projects up to five years. While such causes as strikes, design changes and equipment failures delay projects, the biggest delay is listening to the public.’”

I want to say to that Hydro official: Tough beans, baby. If you are going to work in a public agency that requires the kind of planning that you are involved in and if you are working in that government agency when there is an NDP government, you bloody well better listen to the public.

We say that planning is essential, but we also say that public participation is essential in that planning, because that planning affects our lives, not merely economically, not merely electrically, but ecologically and socially as well.

I want to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to a brief preliminary statement in this session of some of the concerns that the NDP will be expressing over the next few months with regard to education, if you will just bear with me.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): A programme a day.

Mr. Foulds: We are unlike the Liberal Party. I have been at many meetings with the new spokesman on education for the Liberal Party, the former chairman of the Metro Toronto school board, Bruce Bone. I think we shared three of four platforms together within the last six weeks. Mr. Bone says they don’t want to reveal what their policy is in case the government takes it.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, if the government has enough sense to adopt the NDP education policy, I would be only too glad, because it would lead to an improvement of the educational system of the province. I don’t care what method is brought about if there is improvement for the human needs of the people of the province by those guys over there swiping some of our policies. I don’t mind at all, because we are going to replace them anyway and we will do it properly and implement the further steps that they wouldn’t have the guts to do in the first place.

Mr. Ferrier: The Liberals have nothing to offer.

Mr. Foulds: The major aim of the NDP educational policy is to rehumanize the educational system of this province. During the past 10 to 15 years, the Davis government’s obsession with growth has created an educational juggernaut and dehumanized our schools.

Whether we talk about specific items like pupil-teacher ratios, educational ceilings, per pupil grants for elementary schools, teacher-board negotiation procedures, teaching basic skills versus the teaching of inquiry skills, the three Rs, hard schools, soft schools, community schools -- all that talk, Mr. Speaker, all that policy about those matters, frankly, is meaningless unless it leads to and means a reintroduction of humanity, a reintroduction of the human element into our school system.

Mr. Gilbertson: How does the member’s party do that?

Mr. Foulds: Just wait for it; it is coming. Let me go back a little bit, Mr. Speaker. Responding to the demands of the corporate sector of the business and industrial interests of the province for trained technicians in the late 1950s, this government deliberately exploited the federal funds available through Michael Starr’s Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act of 1960. Ontario’s educational spending was almost entirely on bricks and mortar and on the hardware.

Do you know that Ontario, the richest province in Canada, Mr. Speaker, took 65 per cent of the money available through that federal programme, through its own greed, to meet the needs of the corporate sector? And who were the educational hardware merchants of the 1960s? Was it the man from Kelowna, Wacky Bennett? No, sir. Both John Robarts and the present Premier, as the former Minister of Education and the former Minister of Colleges and Universities, can be held directly responsible for the present high education costs. It was they who introduced costly programmes: The lavish Ontario Institute for Studies in Education; the burgeoning empire of the Ontario Educational Communications Authority; and the ministry’s own bureaucracy.

There is no doubt in my mind that the government’s present decision to impose restrictions on educational spending is a political decision. There is no doubt that the public has been feeling uneasy for some considerable time about the rising cost of educational spending, which the present Premier got us into in the 1960s. The Premier got us into it and he committed the province to the expenditures -- and it is a matter of commitment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gilbertson: Is the member still hollering for more?

Mr. Foulds: Once the government puts the institutions and programmes in place, it cannot frivolously abandon them a few short years later. It is also a matter of priorities.

As I said, the government could, some time ago -- not so long ago -- find at least $100 million to bail out such multinational corporations as Imperial Oil and Gulf Oil. But they can’t find, or they don’t seem willing to find, the money to finance education.

Where was the government’s restraint, for example, Mr. Speaker, in that most infamous of the pork barrel ministries, the Ministry of Government Services? Where was the restraint in the government’s ceilings over Hydro’s new head office building in Toronto, where they threw away $1,485,000 just in architects’ fees for the original design of the head office? Then they scrapped that design, but turned the design over, free of charge, to the successful bidder, Canada Square Development Corp., which has nearly completed that $44.4 million building at the corner of College St. and University Ave. Where was the restraint in that incident, Mr. Speaker?

Some of the members of this House probably haven’t heard of the government’s hospitality fund. It is a small budget; I think in 1973 it spent only $223,237. It was not a large amount in total government spending. But the people in the province may wonder why their tax dollars should go for buying dinners and luncheons for worthy organizations, I’m sure.

There was the Canadian Canoe Society, $2,580; the Gyro Club of McKenzie Island, $913; and the National Canadian Public Relations Society had a dinner or luncheon for $2,565. The freeloading media got in on the bandwagon as well. The Central Canada Broadcast Association had a nice luncheon for $2,158. And this one really intrigues me: the press orientation dinner for the royal visit. This isn’t the dinner for the royal visit; it’s just the press orientation dinner for the royal visit, at $3,251.

Maybe that doesn’t amount to a large amount of money, but there are areas there in the Ministry of Government Services that we should be restraining -- and we don’t.

Mr. Speaker, the major trouble with this government is that it is speeding toward the future with its eyes firmly fixed on the rear view mirror. What it sees in that rear view mirror is a vision of society based on the popular thinking of the 1950s. There is no doubt that it is a government of technocrats who are still enthralled with the popular wisdom of the late Fifties and early Sixties. That vision wrongly sees that all society’s ills can be improved through technological advances. Let me give you a quote, Mr. Speaker, from a very good book published recently by a man called Loren Lind. It is called “The Learning Machine; a Hard Look at Toronto Schools.” This quote comes from his book.

“Some inkling into Davis’s vision for the future is provided in the speech he gave at the Royal Bank of Canada’s headquarters in May, 1964.” The following is a direct quotation from the Premier’s speech; he was then Education Minister.

“The title of the talk was ‘Education: The Year 2064 as it appears from 1964.’” He envisaged the day when “‘each student must be taught above all else to communicate with computers; with his own and through it with those of others. Our great- grandchildren, whether test-tube or full born, will enter the school of the future, in the creche, in the nursery schools being cared for by humans and robots but freeing the parents from whom the genetic structure was fashioned for work or recreation. Learning will begin at once, but imperceptibly so, as the proper environment is constructed and continuously altered to match growth and needs obtained by the genetic computer.’”

It is that inhuman vision of society, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP emphatically rejects. It is that vision of society that I emphatically reject.

Mr. Lawlor: Brave new world.

Mr. Foulds: Brave new world; right. That is why in the next few months we will be laying out our policies, time after time, in human terms to meet the human needs of the people of this province.

Where do we go from here? How do we begin to talk sanely about education in Ontario? How do we begin to talk about rehumanizing the school system? We in the New Democratic Party would start with the people on the firing line, the teachers. We would start, as we have said many times, by giving them full and free collective bargaining rights including the right to strike. Not because we like strikes; frankly, Mr. Speaker, we don’t. In fact, politically, strikes hurt our party more than either of the other two political parties.

We in the New Democratic Party would give teachers full collective bargaining rights because we admire the job they are attempting to do. We happen to know that when they talk about working conditions for themselves, or wanting to negotiate working conditions for themselves, they are also talking about negotiating learning conditions for the children in the classrooms.

We know that every time they reduce the class size, through a collective agreement with a board of education, they are enabling the children in the classrooms to get the additional individual and personal attention they need. We know that, by and large, the teachers of this province are far more aware of and far more sensitive to the needs of the children in the classrooms than all of the educational administrators in the various regional and board offices throughout the province or in the ministry’s own offices.

Therefore, we see the granting of full teacher bargaining rights merely as the first step toward re-establishing the dignity of the classroom teacher so that he or she can be a full participant in the key decisions which affect the running and direction of our school system.

One of the most blatant failures of the Minister of Education in recent months has been his failure to bring in proper legislation governing teacher-board negotiations. Such legislation could have and should have been brought in a year ago; last spring. Such legislation should have given teachers full collective bargaining rights, of course. if we had brought it in at that time, Mr. Speaker, we could have referred it to committee outside the House; the debate could have been sane and rational. It could have had full participation from the public and we could have had it in place for this present school year.

And that legislation should not merely contain full collective bargaining rights for teachers, but it must also make good-faith bargaining a focal point in the legislation. And the good-faith bargaining clause should be mandatory, as it is in the Labour Relations Act. But unlike the Labour Relations Act, in this bill this ministry must have the will and must develop the expertise to enforce good-faith bargaining.

The second major step we in the New Democratic Party would take to reintroduce humanity into the school system would be to place a very real emphasis on elementary and pre-elementary education. The major fault with the present educational ceilings is that they do not fundamentally realign spending. They merely curtail; they slice the top off the educational budgets but they do not get at the vertical fat within those budgets.

Where we need to put more of our money into education is at the elementary and the pre-elementary level. The Minister of Education’s statement on educational ceilings last September reminded me of the former Treasurer’s (Mr. White) streaker budget of the previous spring. At first glance it appeared quite effective, but first impressions didn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

Putting it bluntly, it is shocking that the minister only narrowed the gap in allowable per pupil spending between elementary and secondary school students by a paltry $12. Knowing the present anti-education bias of the Conservative government, I suppose we should be thankful that it was not achieved by cutting back on secondary school spending. But it is even more shocking that last week the minister’s most recent statement did nothing to narrow the gap between the per pupil ceiling and the per pupil grant between elementary and secondary pupils.

If the government was sincere about giving a high priority to education, and especially about increasing services to elementary school pupils, it should have taken the following steps, as the new Democratic Party would do: An immediate lump sum increase to the elementary per pupil ceiling of $150; a commitment to raise this by an annual amount of $100 yearly until parity is reached between elementary and secondary grants.

Although this would cause a bulge in educational spending temporarily, it would save enormous amounts of money in the long run and it would save enormous amounts in terms of human endeavour in the long run, because if we could not merely diagnose the learning problems of children at a very early age --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: What time has the member in mind?

Mr. Foulds: -- but also provide remedial services for those children, we would not have to spend the inordinate amount of time we presently spend in our school system teaching and reteaching, doing remedial work in universities, if we could tackle the problem and concentrate on those learning problems at a very early age. We would not have the problem with dropout rates in high schools that we now have.

And it would be worth the expenditure. It would save us money and it would save us an enormous amount of anguish and frustration on the part of teachers, but more important, on the part of students.

They would be more productive students within the educational system, they would be more productive students in society when they graduated, and they would contribute to the gross provincial product and the economy of the province so that we had a wider taxation base. It would work out, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Where would the member raise the money?

Mr. Foulds: Where would we get the money?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Who is the member going to tax, tell us that?

Mr. Foulds: We would tax the resource industry.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Same old story.

Mr. Foulds: We would institute a special levy on industry and commerce for educational purposes, since they benefit so directly right now from the educational spending in terms of training. They benefit from it, but they don’t spend any money on educational programmes worth their salt. We would devise a system, frankly as they did in Great Britain under the Labour government of 1964, where those industries that adopted apprentice programmes and did training programmes within the factories would get a rebate on their educational levy. There are all kinds of areas.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The Labour government almost bankrupted, and has bankrupted, industries in Britain; that is the problem.

Mr. Foulds: No, it didn’t; no, it didn’t. The reason a number of industries in Britain are bankrupt is because they have not done any upgrading of their industrial machinery since the turn of the century. Business in Great Britain hasn’t done the job of modernizing industry that has been done, say, in North America and in Germany.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: But the government has.

Mr. Laughren: The government doesn’t have the resources either.

Mr. Foulds: The third major step that the NDP would take to rehumanize education -- and I know that in the end the member for Prince Edward-Lennox won’t understand this, but I would like to finish my speech before we adjourn so that other people who wish to speak in this debate can get on to it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They want the government to take over resources development.

Mr. Foulds: The third major step that the NDP would take to rehumanize education -- did the member have his opportunity to speak in this debate?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The NDP are going to tax resource industries, at the same time saying that the government should take over the resource industries. They should make up their minds.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order. Would the hon. member continue his remarks through the Chair?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, I certainly would, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to turn my back on the reactionary from Prince Edward-Lennox. As I was saying, the third major step that the NDP would take to rehumanize education would be to place an importance on teacher education never before seen in this province. It is the fundamental conviction of the NDP that teacher education is fundamental to the continuation of a healthy school system. For this reason, serious consideration would be given to increasing the practical experience component of teacher training programmes. Perhaps apprenticeships and internships are ways of developing this component, and it is the policy of the NDP that legislation and/or structures would be devised to extend the sabbatical concept to make study leaves possible, both on a short-term basis and on a long-term basis. For example, surely it is possible that we could relieve teachers of classroom duty for short periods to attend seminars or courses for a weekend, a week long or a month’s duration, as well as having the usual concept of a year-long sabbatical every seven years.

One of the key reasons for the malaise in education today is the alienation of parents and the public generally from the school system. In fact, if one were to be critical, one could perhaps say that many parents get interested in the school system only when there is a crisis, either with their individual child or if there is a crisis because of a teacher work stoppage at the local level.

To overcome this malaise and this alienation the NDP would encourage the development of local school councils, composed of principals, teachers, parents and non-parents served by the schools. Such a school council could, for example, be developed over an area served by a high school and six to eight feeder elementary schools. This school council would be a key if not the key body in determining the aims and objectives of the school. The parent representation or the resident representation on the school council could very simply be elected at a town-hall type of meeting.

We will be elaborating on these policies, Mr. Speaker, in terms of education as we go through the budget and as we go through the estimates of the Ministry of Education. Our key problem is to make the Davis impersonal juggernaut system of education more human. Our key objective is to develop each and every child to his or her fullest capacity to benefit and serve the society in which he lives, and the key person to do that is the classroom teacher.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member be able to wind up these remarks now?

Mr. Foulds: I am just going to do that, Mr. Speaker; thank you very much. Those are some of the ideas that I wanted to put on the record this morning, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your patience. I will now take my seat.

Mr. Kennedy moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

It being 12:30 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.