The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

ST. ANDREW’S DAY

Mr. Grossman: In carrying on the tradition of this House, I would as the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick draw to the attention of this House that this coming Sunday is St. Andrew’s Day. I am informed that at this stage there are more than two million people in Canada who are Scots by birth or descent.

That would, of course, include the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans), who cautioned this House some two years ago on this occasion that haggis, which is one of those foods feasted upon on this day, was at the point of going out of existence and becoming extinct. Perhaps he can let us know whether that has occurred.

In any event I am happy to say that I have certainly done my part. I’ve named my two sons Robbie Brett and Jamie Andrew. I’d hoped today to help commemorate the day by sending each of the members of this House a small piece of the Minister of Health’s sports jacket but he escaped my grasp.

I should point out that yesterday the British government published a white paper outlining its plans for the establishment of a Scottish assembly that will have approximately the same powers, responsibilities and decorum as this Legislature. This is being done in response to nationalist sentiment in Scotland and will mark the return of a form of direct representation to those people.

Mr. Lewis: What do you mean by “those people”?

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

Mr. Lewis: Such a lavish cabinet turnout this morning.

Mr. Nixon: They are not much for staying.

Mr. Deans: Would you say something nice about Scotland please.

Mr. Lewis: Could I say something nice about Scotland?

Mr. Deans: Yes, please.

Mr. Lewis: By all means.

Mr. Deans: I said pretty nice things last week.

HEALTH OF STELCO COKE OVEN WORKERS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour, has she concerned herself with the question of coke oven exposures in Hamilton and the Soo in particular, with the various applications which are before the Workmen’s Compensation Board now, and the procedures for safeguarding the exposure which the workers have experienced over the last little while?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that I have been attempting to learn as much as possible from the literature which is available regarding coke oven exposure, and about the hazards to which the workers are subjected. I have some very real concern about this, as he knows. I feel that this is one of the areas in which the new occupational health advisory committee is probably going to be of great help to the ministries involved in the occupational health accord within this government. I can assure him that this is one of the areas in which I have deep interest and which I shall continue to explore and to be of as much assistance as possible.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, did the minister know that the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Health had apparently contracted out to the Ontario Research Foundation, a project for a major survey of the levels of emission and the extent of exposure, and was that done with her knowledge or the collaboration of her ministry?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sure, as a matter of fact, that this was contracted out before the accord was developed and before the occupational health advisory committee was appointed. This was one of the areas of concern of the Ministry of Health, and I think very wisely, they began to explore this before there was any totally co-ordinated effort developed on an interministerial basis within the government. I have not seen that report; but I did know that it had been done.

Mr. Lewis: Further supplementary or related question: Has the minister concerned herself with the processing of Workmen’s Compensation claims from Stelco, in particular, for requests to receive widows’ pensions in the case of workers who have died and from others who are presently stricken? Has she concerned herself with the processing of claims that arose out of the Johns-Manville situation in Scarborough as well?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We have asked for a report from the Workmen’s Compensation Board regarding the length of time required, the mechanism of processing and the results of the processing of those specific areas.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister intend to be present when the Workmen’s Compensation Board comes before the committee of the Legislature for, I think, a full day of scrutiny or more than one day?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It was my suggestion, as a matter of fact, that one extra day of the committee of estimates be devoted to examination of the function of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, although it is not in fact required under the estimates.

Mr. Deans: Your suggestion? When did the minister make that suggestion?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Early on in the course of the estimates committee function.

Mr. Lewis: What does the minister mean by it is not required?

Mr. Deans: It is required by the Act.

Mr. Lewis: What is she talking about?

Hon. B. Stephenson: However, because of the concern and the interest of members of this House in the function and the results developed by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, we felt it would be well to allow the members --

Mr. Lewis: They are required to be before the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: They came before the House earlier this year and it was not in fact required that they come before the House again.

Mr. Renwick: Not during this parliament.

Mr. Lewis: Not during these estimates.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: On Wednesday, Dec. 3, the entire day will be given over to an examination of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in the estimates committee. I shall be there all day.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the estimates committee requested that more than one day, if necessary, be granted for hearings with the Workmen’s Compensation Board? As a matter of fact, I think the minister was there when that request was made.

Hon. B. Stephenson: During the course of the estimates debate this question was raised, and the chairman and I both acknowledged that we were going to spend one day with the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Laughren: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: That is not correct; it was agreed --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think there have been many questions on this particular point and now it’s becoming a debate. Did the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

AID TO THIRD WORLD

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food, following on a question which was put to him by the leader of the Liberal Party yesterday, can he report on the international perambulations of Dick Hilliard and what he achieved?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question more properly should be directed to the Premier this morning.

Mr. Reid: What is this, the Howdy Doody show?

Mr. Lewis: Now that we have the hierarchy sorted out around here -- it’s sometimes uncertain -- can the Premier tell us what Dick Hilliard did, perhaps how much it cost and what follows upon it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I can’t, but I’m in the process. Mr. Hilliard’s report apparently is due at the end of December. He has been working very diligently on the request that was made of him by the government to look into the proposals that have come from a number of groups, which I’m sure are familiar to the members who were here prior to the last election -- and perhaps they’ve been in touch with some of the new members as well about the question of assistance in terms basically of food or agricultural produce.

Mr. Hilliard has recommended two programmes and I think they have been approved. In fact, I think one was approved yesterday. The minister has some of the details, but it involves the supply -- through the Canadian Hunger Foundation, to a total of $150,000 value -- of 250 heifers to the Punjab and 80 to the Republic of India. That part of his recommendation has already been approved and I know the Leader of the Opposition, with his great interest in this, would totally approve of these moves. But I will not have a full report on Mr. Hilliard’s recommendations until the end of the month.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the journeys of Mr. Hilliard were triggered by the request of a number of charitable institutions led by five churches, that the government consider making matching grants to funds raised, and not just to sell heifers to the Punjab, is the government considering making available some public funds on the basis of matching grants?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should not have used the term “sale.” The Minister of Agriculture and Food could give us the details. It was a grant; it was not a sale, as I understand it.

The question of the dollar-for-dollar matching grant is something, of course, that Mr. Hilliard is still assessing. I think one or two ether provinces have become involved. One of the provinces that has become involved, I think, did not do it on the basis of matching dollar for dollar, but it did relate to agricultural produce surplus, I guess, on some occasions from that particular province.

In other words, they did participate but I believe it was done with some control on what the produce was and the fact that it came from that particular province. As I say, we will have a full report from Mr. Hilliard at the end of the month.

Mr. McClellan: A further supplementary: Did I understand the Premier to say, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, that we are sending cows to India?

Mr. Lewis: You have to admit it really takes imagination to send cows to India.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My information is that, through the Canadian Hunger Foundation, 250 heifers will go to the Republic of India; and 80 will go, I think, to the Punjab. I will ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to give a more technical and detailed definition of that.

Mr. Nixon: And on the religious overtones of that; we’ve got a lot of sacred cows here.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe you could send him to Newcastle to find out if they need fuel.

[10:15]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, I know he intended that in a very facetious way, but just in case some people take him seriously, as they do on some issues, we have no intention of sending Mr. Hilliard to Newcastle.

Mr. Lewis: But if you moved it, we’d support you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In other words, you would support sending Mr. Hilliard.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Education, if the Anti-Inflation Board has been in touch with him this morning about the ruling they’re giving on the secondary school teachers?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, they have not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister of Education if he can report to the House the cost of the mediation and fact-finding that was undertaken at the initiative of the Ministry of Education to assist in the settlement of the continuing dispute between the secondary school teachers of Metro Toronto and their board?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the charges of the mediator, Mr. Hartt, for his services were about $37,000 and there was something like $5,500 expenses. The charges for his fact-finding operation, which had nothing to do with us but was under the Education Relations Commission, was something a little over $4,000, as I recall. They’re just round figures that I can recall.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Does it concern the minister that the procedure that we have established under Bill 100 -- for all of its great philosophical advantages -- in practical terms hasn’t been effective as yet and is being established as a terribly expensive procedure indeed? By the time the teachers’ pay the expenses that they have, the boards pay the expenses that they have, and the taxpayers, through mediation and fact-finding, pay the expenses that we have, surely we have created --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a question for information?

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister not agree that --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Nixon: What do you want?

Mr. Speaker: Really, I think a question for information is a little more appropriate. Perhaps the member might rephrase it. To ask a minister’s opinion on something is not really of urgent public importance, if I may make that observation.

Mr. Nixon: It might be of some assistance then if I were to ask the minister if he would ask somebody in his department to total up the full cost of the first utilization of Bill 100 in this particular negotiation, which still has not given us even a move toward a settlement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the record has got to be straight here. First of all, I think it has to be pointed out that Bill 100, as a piece of legislation, is working.

Mr. Lewis: Excellently. There are 60 settlements.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes. Let’s not look at one tragic situation and cloud the whole of Bill 100 with what’s going on here in Metropolitan Toronto. Eighty-four fact-finders were appointed and 60 settlements have occurred since the bill came into effect.

Mr. Lewis: That is way ahead of the last time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have, at the present time, one work stoppage in the province. We’ve had more than that, as my friend knows.

Mr. Nixon: It is a doozer.

Hon. Mr. Wells: So let’s not downgrade Bill 100. It’s working and I think it’s working well, and I don’t think the procedures are costing any more than some of the money that was spent in other procedures in the past. In fact, it’s probably working better. Let’s also get this very clear -- there’s been a demand in this House, particularly from the leader of the Liberal Party, that this Minister of Education play some part in what’s going on in Metropolitan Toronto. Indeed, I was concerned about the Metropolitan Toronto situation perhaps well before he or anyone else in this House was, and that concern led me to take the unusual step of appointing Stanley Hartt, and the ministry agreeing to pay for him -- which I agree has cost a lot of money -- in the hopes that we could bring about a settlement in Metropolitan Toronto.

Remember, his appointment came about before Bill 100 was brought into this House, and we attempted to get him in there to help the parties reach an agreement. I wish he had been able to bring them to total agreement, but he couldn’t. It should also be remembered that he did get about 300 or so items of agreement. I can’t remember the exact number, but he did get agreement on practically all parts of the contract except the monetary parts, which, again, was a very remarkable job on his part.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since we are concerning ourselves with this one instance, in all of the other successes, is the minister having a problem convincing anybody to serve on the Education Relations Commission? Is that the only reason he has not been able to bring it up to its full complement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think some people find they don’t have the time when they’re asked to serve on these commissions, and this has been a problem from time to time. We’re trying to find the right type of people, as I indicated during the debate in this House, and one of the big qualifications, my friend will remember, was that we weren’t going to put adversaries on the commission -- in other words, we weren’t going to select people who had been directly involved with the teaching profession or with school boards -- but we were going to select people who were impartial and had a knowledge of bargaining so that they could provide the general assistance necessary. This, in some way, limits the number of people who are available or who could serve on this commission.

I might also say there was a story in the Globe and Mail this morning which indicated that I had said -- and I don’t recall the words I used but certainly I would want to correct them -- that we have three capable men on the commission. We have, of course, two men and one woman, all of them very capable, and the people we’re looking for to fill the two vacancies are not men, but they are competent people. That’s who we will find.

MORTGAGE INTEREST TAX CREDIT

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Premier having to do with the words in the Speech from the Throne which indicated that, failing adequate federal action, the Legislature would be asked to approve legislation to give assistance on the basis of interest payments to homeowners. Is he satisfied with the federal action? Are we going to be presented with legislation here? Is there a statement of policy in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we’re not sure of that yet. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), I would presume, has had some further discussions in the past two or three days but at this moment we haven’t really fully assessed the implications of the federal programme. I expect we will have some statement on it before the House rises.

Mr. Nixon: It might then be worthwhile if I might, with the Speaker’s permission, direct a question to the Minister of Housing on that. Did the minister hear what we were talking about?

We were talking about the policy having to do with making payments to assist with the interest payments of homeowners in this province, as referred to in the Speech from the Throne. It might also give the Minister of Housing a chance to comment on the reports of housing starts during October and perhaps to claim credit for them. Let’s see if he will.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will take any credit there is for housing starts. I saw those figures and was encouraged.

Mr. Nixon: Underlying conditions show through.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I really can’t make any comment about the mortgage interest subsidy at this time. That’s a matter of budget requirements.

Mr. Bullbrook: Budget requirements? That is not what the Premier said; you should have heard his response.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The Premier’s right again.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, with your permission: Since it was referred to in the Speech from the Throne, and since there was some indication early on that this session might even prorogue before Christmas, it seems that if we’re going to have legislation having to do with that we should hear about it fairly soon. Is the minister working on legislation? Is he or is he not?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m not working on any legislation in any great detail at this time. We’re looking at the programme.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I ask -- sorry; after you.

Mr. Lewis: I take it from the Premier’s reply, and the minister’s, that the pathetic federal frilling with interest rates means the minister is using it as a lever to avoid legislation or to avoid a commitment on a promise made during the campaign. That is now clear, is it not?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, obviously the member has taken it wrongly. That is not correct.

Mr. Lewis: Have I? Then why isn’t the minister drafting legislation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I didn’t say I wasn’t drafting legislation. I said we were working on it now.

Mr. Nixon: You said you weren’t working on it very hard.

Mr. Bullbrook: That was the basis of my supplementary question, though I might not have used the phrase “pathetic federal trifling.”

SPEECH OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

Mr. Germa: A question of the Minister of Labour. The minister will recall addressing the Ontario Medical Association in London this spring, at which time she was reported to have said, “It is my considered opinion that our members have little desire to take on the trappings, postures, position or policies of a truculent, demanding, completely money-oriented union.” Does this statement still represent her present-day position as it relates to the trade union movement?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I am extremely flattered that the opposition has taken the trouble to research so many of my old speeches in various other roles. I think that is an honour not usually accorded to a freshman member of this House.

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question.

Mr. Bain: They make interesting reading,

Mr. Lewis: Someone has to read them.

Hon. B. Stephenson: However, I was speaking about a specific situation in a set of specific circumstances and in fact, about a specific union at that point.

Mr. Lewis: Which one?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I don’t have to name it for you.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, you do.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I don’t, thank you, because it was in earlier circumstances and has nothing to do with the question at the moment. My attitude would be the same about any group which was in fact truculent, which was in fact money gouging and which was in fact considering only its own interests and nothing else.

Mr. Warner: The OMA.

Mr. Nixon: How about the OMA?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it doesn’t qualify.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to name the specific union which she described in this contemptuous fashion?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I just said a moment ago that I was not prepared to do so.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, that is very good. It’s very good for the Minister of Labour to be impartial.

PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Shore: I’d like to direct a question to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer please comment and give us his observations, in view of his statement the other day relative to the grants to municipalities, on a statement that was made by the Ministry of Treasury:

“The Ontario government therefore gives this guarantee to its local governments: Provincial assistance in future years will grow at a rate not less than the growth rate of Ontario’s total revenue.”

Would the Treasurer please comment on that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s precisely what we’re doing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Shore: A supplementary: If the revenue was growing at 12 per cent, could I ask why they were talking about five per cent to six per cent this year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because we have made it clear that we carry forward either surpluses or deficits from year to year.

Mr. Good: No, the Treasurer didn’t make it clear.

Mr. Shore: Could I ask the Treasurer why does the statement say “not less than growth in each year”?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s on an accumulative basis.

Mr. Shore: I don’t think you have answered the question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have answered it to my satisfaction.

Mr. Shore: Yes, I know you did -- but I don’t think you answered it to the satisfaction of the people.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Marvin, you are an accountant; you know what “accumulative” means.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North has a supplementary.

Mr. Good: How can the Treasurer use this accumulative basis for the transfer of funds when the shortfall to the municipalities, which he is now determining for next year, is directly related to actions by the government to reduce its own income through election promises last year by taking off the sales tax on automobiles? The government created the shortfall and it expects the municipalities to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: The municipal taxpayers pay the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, actually the shortfall -- the member has it a little twisted around as a matter of fact --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Again.

Mr. Good: The Treasurer is the one who is twisted.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We reduced the taxes during this current year and the municipalities actually did not suffer from that, as it turned out. They’re getting more money than they should. They did not share in the reduction to the extent which they should have. How can I explain it? Very easily.

Mr. Good: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is developing into a debate. The member for Peterborough has a question.

Mr. Good: This is very important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I realize this, but it has been turned into a debate by the soft of questions that are being asked. The member for Peterborough.

HOSPITAL BUDGETS

Mrs. Sandeman: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Could the minister tell me what answer he is giving to hospitals, such as the Peterborough Civic Hospital, and others across the province which, after extreme care and cost-cutting measures, are still forced to ask for a budget supplement for 1975?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If the hospital in fact asks for a budget supplement for 1975 we will, after a preliminary review of the request and discussions, go into a line-by-line review if necessary. We have done this in about five or six instances. This is a very costly and time consuming procedure; therefore, we usually try to have some discussions before we agree to do that to see whether in fact we can accept any of the arguments or reject them and get mutual agreements. This has been quite effective so far, but I think most hospitals have realized that their budget in fact was the upper limit of the amount they could spend and some have taken fairly extreme measures to live within it. I commend them for doing that. On the other hand, if in fact the costs are unavoidable and if in fact we feel they’ve used good management, we’ve usually awarded the difference.

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Relative to the refusal of both the Minister of Housing and Norm Webster’s friend over there, would the Attorney General, being completely objective, suggest that we would get better action from the RCMP than the OPP in having access to the OHC files for the issuance of a search warrant?

Mr. Yakabuski: What is the member talking about? Sky Shops?

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no opinion on that matter at this time.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Good: That’s the first time you haven’t had an opinion.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister think we should have to resort to search warrants for access to public information? Does he have an opinion on that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t understand the question; or I didn’t quite hear the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Good: Come on, you understand it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m not sure I heard the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to repeat it?

Mr. Sargent: Be glad to do it again.

Mr. B. Newman: Recycle it.

Mr. Sargent: As the minister knows we’ve been refused access by both ministers to OHC files going back seven or eight years because of alleged mishandling of millions of dollars in funds. In view of the fact that the ongoing --

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that the ongoing searches in Ottawa are a lot less meaningful than this, do we have to resort to getting the RCMP to issue a search warrant or would the OPP do for the job here?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no comment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary to that then --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: I am entitled to a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: You had a supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the Attorney General consider helping himself and the hon. member who has just queried him, out of the problem by adopting my private member’s bill on freedom of information? Then procedures would be established for getting information without this wrangling.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have not really had an opportunity to consider in any degree of depth my hon. friend’s private member’s bill. I shall be happy to do that and communicate further with my hon. friend.

ENTERIC-COATED ASPIRIN

Mr. Godfrey: Question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: In view of the information I made available to him last week with regard to enteric-coated aspirin, which is mandatory in the treatment of old age pensioners with arthritis, will he undertake to remove as soon as possible the product Novasen from the drug benefit formulary?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’m still considering that.

Mr. Godfrey: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the minister is considering this -- and this medication has been proved to be inadequate -- does he intend to let people be maltreated by this medication?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I hope the medical profession would also look at it.

EGGS IMPORTED FROM U.S.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture: Is the minister aware of a recent newspaper report that a member of the Ontario Egg Marketing Board imported four million eggs from the United States to sell them as his own eggs to the marketing board?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m quite aware of the situation.

Mr. Ruston: Is the minister investigating it?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

BREATHALYSER TESTS

Mr. Kennedy: Would the Attorney General request the federal Minister of Justice to amend the Criminal Code whereby requests to take a breathalyser test following motor accidents where there is personal injury or a fatality be made mandatory, rather than discretionary, by investigating officers, as I understand is now the case?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has spoken to me about this matter. I think in relation to where there is evidence of alcohol, the present section of the Criminal Code of Canada, being section 235, states that “where a peace officer on reasonable and probable ground believes that a person is committing an offence in relation to alcohol -- ”

Mr. Deans: You just happened to have that with you.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated my hon. friend had spoken to me privately about it. I think, in view of the dimensions of the tragedy involved in relation to those accidents on the highway, my hon. friend opposite might take the matter a little more seriously than he apparently does.

Mr. Deans: It is very serious.

Mr. Sargent: Come on, it was a planted question. What are you talking about?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the minister continue with his answer.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Where there is evidence of alcohol the provision of the Code indicates that a police officer may give the test. My hon. friend has suggested that it should be mandatory. I just want to indicate to the Legislature that I agree with him that it should be mandatory where practical, and I will be corresponding with my federal counterpart in this regard.

REDUCTION OF SPEED LIMITS

Mr. Bain: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Since the main highway arteries in southern Ontario, the expressways, will have a 60 mph speed limit, is the minister prepared to set a 60 mph speed limit on the two main highway arteries in northern Ontario, the trans-Canada routes, Highways 11 and 17?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, not at this time. I haven’t given consideration to that. Those two highways are not throughways such as --

Mr. Ferrier: They are the main arteries.

Mr. Laughren: They are also dangerous.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- the other highways that the hon. member refers to that will have a 60 mph limit and which are divided highways. I don’t think there is a reasonable comparison between the two. I realize the hon. member’s argument --

Mr. Stokes: It is not safe to go over 50 mph on them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- of the extreme distances between municipalities in northern Ontario and the fact that at least in most months of the year the traffic on those highways is considerably less than what would be expected in southern Ontario. But from the energy point of view and from the safety point of view I think it is still necessary to have the lower speed limits.

Mr. Bain: Supplementary: In view of the minister’s answer -- and many of the items in his answer lead me to conclude there should be a 60 mph limit -- I would just ask does he think it is reasonable to expect someone to drive from New Liskeard to Kirkland to Cochrane to Kap to Heart to Longlac to Geraldton to Thunder Bay at 50 mph, especially in the light of the fact that many people travel those highways to and from work?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. minister answered that question. Now you are debating. The hon. minister has already answered what was in your mind.

Mr. Bain: I am asking him does he think it is reasonable, yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Because of the beautiful scenery and attributes --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The member for Halton-Burlington.

Mr. Sargent: He didn’t want to know that much about it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I had the advantage of enjoying it last year.

Interjections.

PCBS AND TORONTO WATER SUPPLY

Mr. Reed: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Does the minister know if there are any PCBs being ingested by the people of the city of Toronto through their drinking water?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No. We are satisfied that any PCBs that exist anywhere in the harbour area or in Lake Ontario or in those areas where water is used and drawn are properly filtrated and prevented from affecting drinking water.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: Are PCBs removed through filtration?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: PCBs are a type of contaminant that are properly filtrated. The salinization process and the general filtration process make it certain, as far as my people are concerned, that they don’t affect water drunk by humans.

SALARY INCREASES FOR MEMBERS

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier.

Mr. Sargent: When are you going to put him in the cabinet?

Mr. Williams: Notwithstanding the government’s announced anti-inflation programme, it is my understanding that members of the opposition parties are in fact seeking self-enrichment by way of salary increases at this time.

Mr. Good: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, that’s all.

Mr. Williams: Would the Premier clarify the government’s position with regard to these untimely demands?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have read observations in the press by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) relating to compensation being paid members of this Legislature.

Mr. Martel: The Camp commission raised it and you established the select committee.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t care what the commission said and I don’t care what the member for Sudbury East says, I think it would be totally wrong for the members of this House at this period of time to be considering voting themselves a raise. I say very simply to the members opposite, I would be quite delighted to walk down the hall and visit Her Honour on that particular issue if they wish to bring it to a head in this House.

Mr. Lewis: That’s bravado.

Mr. Deans: That’s really great. In order that the committee not waste its time studying matters that the Premier has already decided are not to be touched on at this point, would he mind standing up in his place and telling me exactly what he intends they should look at when they review the Camp recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the committee is a select committee of this House, where the members opposite constitute the majority; I am just telling the members of this House in reply to a question that was asked -- and I must say without any prompting from me -- what my personal point of view is, and I would like to think the view of the members of this caucus, and that is that it would be irresponsible for this House to consider a salary increase for the members of this Legislature at this time and I make that abundantly clear. I think there are a lot of recommendations in that report that the select committee is considering and should be considering where I think all of us would benefit from their advice.

If the member for Wentworth feels very strongly that the select committee should be considering the matter of salary, so be it. Why doesn’t he stand up and say that he thinks he should have a salary increase?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think we should.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think it is right; I don’t think it is proper.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We will get on with the next question.

Mr. Deans: At least give them some guidance.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am surprised you are pressing it. Why are you pressing; why do you need to do that?

Mr. Deans: Why am pressing you? Because you were asked to clarify the position on a salary increase.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Nixon: All your back-benchers get additional income.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask that the crossfire cease. Order please. Order from all sides please. Order, order.

Mr. Renwick: Why don’t you ask your Minister without Portfolio what he thinks about the increase?

Mr. Lewis: How many Tory back-benchers have supplementary incomes?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Why don’t you offer your services?

Mr. Lewis: I’d love to.

DOW CHEMICAL ACTION

Mrs. Bryden: I have a question for the full-circle Minister of the Environment, who, when he came back to the Environment portfolio, said that one of his first undertakings would be to find out the status of the government’s most spectacular effort to make polluters pay -- it dates back to the 1971 election, not the most recent one -- the $35 million suit against the Dow Chemical Co. Has the minister had time to find out the status of that lawsuit?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That question was asked of the Attorney General some time during the first week of this current session --

Mr. Sargent: And 100 times last year and you haven’t given the answer.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- as well as a number of times before, and I believe the Attorney General said at that time that he was giving full attention to that particular suit, but that certain motions made by the defence have had the effect of delaying the action, and I believe he said he expected to be in court in March.

Mr. Ferrier: In the fullness of time though.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Is that right? I am not sure, I think he said he hoped the matter would eventually get to court some time in 1976.

MILK PRODUCERS’ SUBSIDIES

Mr. Sweeney: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, based on reports of hardship from my own constituency: Would he please advise us if he plans to take any action to counteract the decision by the federal agricultural ministry to reduce subsidies for milk production?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I assume the member is talking about the industrial milk production programme in Ontario. Yes, I have had discussions with the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, where most of the industrial milk is produced -- not all, but most of it -- and that is one of the items we will be discussing as soon as we can get together with Mr. Whelan in Ottawa. We both feel it is a deplorable situation for the farmers of the Province of Ontario and also the Province of Quebec and I am sure the other provinces in Canada.

[10:45]

RELIEF FOR IMPOVERISHED SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services --

An hon. member: Do you want a pay raise too?

Mr. McClellan: No, I don’t.

The most recent report of the Canadian Council on Social Development has indicated that over half of retired Canadians, some one million senior citizens in this country, are living in poverty. I really wanted to ask the minister if that had made any dent in his complacency and whether he has any plans to alleviate the plight of impoverished senior citizens or whether the needs of senior citizens are expendable to the great Conservative god of cost saving?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the full question but I surmised what it was. I gather that --

Mr. Germa: You have a guilt complex.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- the member is referring to the recent newspaper article in connection with a Canadian statistic in terms of the hundreds of thousands of persons below a certain income line. If my memory serves me correctly it is something like 600,000 Canadians. They weren’t talking about people in Ontario. I believe the salary indicated was around $7,000. Is that the subject matter to which the hon. member refers?

Mr. McClellan: No.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If not, would he please rephrase his question so that I could give an appropriate answer?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: He doesn’t know.

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly -- because it was a general question and probably not of urgent public importance in its generality. If it’s a specific question, fine.

Mr. McClellan: I wanted to have the specific response of this ministry to a very specific report published about two days ago by the Canadian Council on Social Development, which identified some one million senior citizens as living below the poverty line. I wondered very simply if the minister has any plans.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: First of all, the member is talking about a Canadian statistic.

Mr. Wildman: Not American.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Not an Ontario statistic.

Mr. Wildman: None of them live here, of course.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Most of them are in Manitoba and British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right; the member is talking about a Canadian statistic. If we look at a statistic in terms of income, that doesn’t necessarily measure need.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: We are not getting anywhere. Order, please. I think the hon. minister answered that it was a statement or a report outside his jurisdiction. That was my understanding of the question and answer.

NIAGARA POLICE COMMISSION’S DEFICIT

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Solicitor General: Is the minister aware that as a result of an arbitration award made under the Police Act, the Niagara Regional Police Commission faces a deficit of over $400,000 in addition to a deficit position in their pension of $600,000?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some of the awards granted to the various police forces across the province are considerably greater than the various councils expected they would be. I am not so sure what part of any expenditure by the municipal council accounts for the deficit. These awards are great but likewise there are other increasing expenditures and they all form part of any deficit the council may run into.

It will be up to the various councils to take whatever steps are necessary to meet those in their tax bills or payments from the provincial government.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What function does the arbitrator perform in a settlement when he grants a greater settlement than the police themselves were asking?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I can’t always account for the decisions arbitrators make but that is part of the system. Both sides have the right to put their case before the arbitrator; the arbitrator comes down with a decision and that is the system. I don’t think for one minute that I should be able to change the arbitrator’s award.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, I am very much interested in whether the minister has been in liaison with the Treasurer or the Premier to advise police commissions as to whether they are legally hound by the arbitrator’s award, it being a voluntary arbitration. Or can they, as the municipal council, subject themselves to the federal anti-inflationary guidelines?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: When I have spoken to some of these people -- and I must admit that I haven’t conferred directly with my confreres -- I have taken the position that the awards are subject to the federal guidelines but in the meantime, whether it’s police or fire, they can sign their agreement subject to whatever decision the federal authorities may make.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Edighoffer from the standing estimates committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Housing he granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

MINISTRY OF HOUSING

Ministry administration programme ... $5,128,000

Community planning programme ... $34,609,000

Housing action programme ...$45,007,000

Housing development programme ... $343,169,000

Home buyers’ grant programme .... $55,000,000

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I might just comment on that --

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, if I may. Do you mind?

Mr. Speaker: Point of order?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’d just like to comment on that report.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is what I wanted to do, but of course I defer to the government House leader.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I just wanted to indicate that this completes the work of the standing committee on estimates but by agreement there will be a meeting of this committee next Wednesday to review the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I just thought I would report that to the House at this time.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, may I beg your indulgence by asking you a question in the form of a point of order? On the filing of that report, is it subject to comment by ourselves at this time?

Mr. Speaker: I am just reminded of something that was a bit unfresh in my memory. There is a concurrence debate opportunity after the report comes into the House. In other words, there is a 2½-hour concurrence debate, which may be allotted to discussion of any report that comes in. That’s all.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish in any way to speak to the matter as to the question of concurrence, but I want to raise a point of order at some time as to what transpired in committee yesterday evening when it was found that there was a restriction placed upon the committee which traditionally had not been there.

Mr. Speaker: I might also add to my earlier remark by saying that if it were decided by the House to use that 2½ hours for concurrence debate, it would come off the time remaining for supply in the House. I didn’t complete the first part of my answer.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry, sir, I obviously am not making myself clear.

Mr. Speaker: No, my second remark had nothing to do with your remark.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, I had hoped that a remark from you might respond to my remark. Should I rise on a point of order now, sir, to bring something --

Mr. Deans: Yes, you should.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Anything on a point of order that happened in committee should be taken up in the committee.

Mr. Deans: No, the Premier said this morning that is not the case.

SUPPLY COMMITTEE

Mr. Bullbrook: I rise on a point of order then, sir, in connection with what transpired in the estimates committee yesterday evening. One of my colleagues put forward to the chairman of the committee, my colleague the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) the question of the committee ordering the last five years of records of the Ontario Housing Corp. to be brought before the committee. I believe the chairman had the benefit of advice from the Clerk during the dinner hour and he, in my respectful opinion, properly ruled that under the terms of the motion put forward by the government House leader and seconded by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, under the strict wording of the motion adopting the committee, as it was put, there was not sufficient power. The normal phrase, as I understand it, wherein the standing committee on estimates had been given power to request the production of documents or the presentation of people before the committee, had not been included in this year’s resolution of the House.

There are two things I want to take up with you which I think we should really have clarified prior to the next session of this Parliament. The first one is whether that particular error was in fact an error; whether it was purely an oversight -- and I say it most respectfully -- on the part of the House leader and the House leader of the New Democratic Party, who seconded the motion. I’d be inclined to think it was and that therefore in the future we will include those powers.

More importantly, for myself, I would like to have from you some type of ruling as to what type of material is available to us from the past in assessing current estimates for a fiscal year. This becomes a focal issue with the opposition, with this party. Concurrent, I take it, with the general attitude expressed by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) this morning -- not only through his private bill but through his comments -- we feel we must have an opportunity to look at these records in evaluating whether we should vote in favour of certain of the estimates, for example, those of the Ontario Housing Corp.

Therefore, I would like you to rule upon the question of whether the strictures placed upon the estimates committee by the present motion make it, in effect, a situation in which they cannot request documentation to be brought before them. More importantly, where can we go in the future with respect to looking into past historical documents?

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, before we get into this debate --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If I might just answer the hon. member, we will have to take that under consideration and get back to you because it’s quite a long proposition you put forward there.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Hodgson: On a point of personal privilege, before we get into this debate and because they’re going to leave in a few minutes, I have 160 students in both galleries from Newmarket, Huron Heights Secondary School, under the direction of Mr. Harper. I would like the hon. members to welcome this party.

Mr. Speaker: It’s not really a point of personal privilege. I was going to give the hon. member a moment later.

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to speak to the point of order for a moment, Mr. Speaker. As you consider the position put forward by the member for Sarnia, and if you decide that the standard motion which we normally pass for estimates would not cover such a matter, can you indicate to the Legislature how we, as opposition parties, go about effecting the release of information used by a public corporation in the determinations or the decisions it makes? How do we get that information out for public scrutiny? What avenues are available to us by way of motion, either in the House or in estimates, which would be seen to be in order and which would be debated and brought to a conclusion?

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker: I forgot what the last motion was now.

Any further reports?

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Mancini be substituted for Mr. Singer on the select committee to consider Bill 5.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, this amendment provides for the continuation in 1976 of the rate of income tax that’s been in effect since the 1972 taxation year.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, just before the orders of the day, I would like to introduce some students who are here from Parkview Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. Clarke.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on 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. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to resume my remarks from last Friday when we were discussing the whole business of government leadership. It really hasn’t changed much in the last week. The basic remarks that I had to make at that time were to show that government leadership in every area has not really changed. What we have seen is some political changes, but we have not really seen any government changes. For the next few moments, I would like to track over that territory.

It is highly unfortunate, in my view, that we have had for some years a political party at Queen’s Park which is concerned about political leadership as opposed to government leadership. It is highly unfortunate, for example, that within the Ministry of Education, we see a move toward --

Mr. Speaker: Could we have some order in the chamber, please?

Mr. Warner: -- controlling all of the educational facilities through Queen’s Park and lightly talking about autonomy for the local boards. The whole term of autonomy should be discussed and well understood and I don’t think that it is. I don’t think it’s understood at all by the Ministry of Education. I think it’s a term that’s nice to talk about. I think it’s something that’s very pleasant to send out to the publicly elected trustees, but in fact, the controls rest here.

In fact, growth factors are determined by Queen’s Park. Curriculum, ultimately, is determined through the ministry. The ceilings are set through the ministry. Decision-making powers really rest here, and all of that came to bear when we saw the strife occurring in the teacher section. It must be noted that all of the teacher strife and all of the arguments and the strikes which resulted come only after the power was centralized here at Queen’s Park, not before.

At a time some years back, when the local boards had autonomy, when they made the real decisions with regard to salaries, there weren’t strikes and a very good relationship existed between the teachers and their boards. That relationship has been eroded and the erosion came after the centralization of power here at Queen’s Park.

But we must move on to other areas such as housing where we have seen a similar kind of situation. Again, we don’t see government leadership in any way but political leadership. Let us talk in terms that will get us re-elected. Let’s say the kinds of things that will render us favourably to the public. Let us in no way present policies that can be debated by the public; in no way invite ideas from the public and adopt them.

In no way do we see government leadership, but we only look at a political arena. If this government were really serious about housing and solving the housing problem, it would look at 115,000 housing starts which are needed and try to encourage a growth in co-op housing. We would try to encourage government spending to provide the market with the houses which are needed. It would assist, as I mentioned last week, credit unions in this province to get involved in the mortgage business as a public service. And I suppose that gets us into an area which the government is always reluctant to discuss -- the money business.

We all know that heritage says it must only be banks and trust companies and other financial institutions which are involved in the money business and that the lending of money for such things as mortgages should never be seen as a public service. I submit that that is a totally wrong viewpoint. It’s a single-minded kind of viewpoint that does not allow the individual to avail himself of funds so that he may get himself into a form of housing that suits his needs.

When we look at the whole business of occupational health, I think it must be noted here that the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) last night made some of the most pertinent remarks that have been heard in this House for some time with regard to the government’s indifference toward occupational health and its indifference toward the way corporations run their business up north. It can only be remarked that in that area again we do not see government leadership.

At this point, I’m sure many members are wondering what government leadership really means, and so I will endeavour to enlighten. Government leadership evolves around several points, the first of which is listening. It includes listening to the people who elect you and those who don’t, and listening to those not even entitled to vote by way of not having citizenship or by way of being under age. Those voices must be heard, for they are citizens of our province. All too frequently they are not listened to.

The first tenet of government leadership is to listen. Secondly, it is to initiate policy in forms of leading, and not in forms of reacting. I propose that this government for 30 years has been in a position of reacting and never in a position of leading. Policies are formulated as a Band-Aid approach to problems. They are never formulated as a position to lead, to anticipate problems and situations and head them off.

If that were the case, then years ago we would have seen, through the Ministry of Labour, some very serious attempts and some real guidelines toward labour disputes. We would have seen a third-party situation, a mediation role drawn up, improvised and set up for all of the bargaining units for organized and unorganized workers in the work field. We would have seen that, but we haven’t. We have seen rather an adversary position subscribed to by this government, and adhered to, and in some cases, I think, promoted.

There has never been a sensitive attitude and a sensitive kind of feeling that it is in the best interests of workers not to have strikes. It is in the best interests of the community not to have strikes. It is in the best interests of companies not to have strikes. The Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) knows precisely what I am talking about. I’m sure she recalls some of my remarks in the estimates committee.

I propose we look at a three-party situation, that it be an ongoing situation, that there be mediation talks prior to the expiry of contracts, that we look at a kind of grievance procedure that is informal in its matter and that we look at less structured ways of dealing with grievances throughout the life of a contract as one means of helping to alleviate the tension. I propose that wherever we can reduce the tension between management and labour, we have a better atmosphere for settling all of the differences prior to the expiry of a contract. That isn’t possible through an adversary relationship. It is possible through a three-party relationship, but it must be structured on an ongoing basis. It requires government leadership.

I think part of it also rests with the fact that the Minister of Labour must come to grips with the issue that we have in this province, in fact, anti-labour legislation. We have attitudes expressed through history that workers should not be encouraged to form unions, and that is why at this point in time we see approximately only a third of the work force unionized. The workers should be encouraged to form unions. There are rumours, and I’m not going to make specific allegations, but rather emphasize the rumours I have heard that in some factories in the past -- not under the present minister’s tenure, but in the past -- the government found ways of having persons in factories where union organizing was occurring so that discouragement would take place and the workers would in fact not receive a union.

The certification process in this province is lengthy, involved and ultimately results in hardship for those who are trying to procure such certification. In addition, we still have on the books a 44-hour work week, which is absolutely astounding in 1975. However, so as not to upset the Minister of Labour, who I’m sure is making an energetic attempt at her position, we must move on to other areas.

I suppose the most condemning feature of 30 years of heritage for this political party that is now the government of the day is in the whole area of social services. It is that area where we have not seen sensitivity. It is that area where we have not leadership in any sense. It is that area where people must come and demand action from government, because the government never goes out and listens, researches and finds material and innovates policy. Its policy is always a reaction to problems.

I don’t wish to bore the Provincial Secretary, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch), by reiterating remarks I made the other night, but I think a dramatic point in hand is where, when only 350 people came from the Mother-led Union to put their very just cause in front of the minister, they came away, rightly or wrongly, with the impression that what was required was the voices of several thousand in order to be listened to. I submit again that that is the wrong approach. The quantity should never be our benchmark, our way of measuring things, but the justice of the cause.

What is left to that group is to go out and organize the 90,000 persons who are in a similar position and perhaps then, when they amass several thousand in front of the Legislature, someone will listen, but now no one listens because they are only 350 in number. Where is the magic line? Where do they draw it? How many must they have before the government listens?

[11:15]

Again, it comes back to the whole business of leadership. It is my view that government must have some imagination. The government must show leadership and it can best do that by listening to everyone, regardless of political persuasion, regardless of whether or not they are allowed to vote, and it must try to take bold steps in creating policies. Then, if those policies prove to be inappropriate, the changes can be made but at least the government is showing initiative. As a point in hand, I point to the very curious kind of situation that we had in the rent control bill, where the bill had to be constructed and presented first before we go into the point of criticism and before we got into the committee to hear from the public.

There was not an avenue for public input prior to drawing up that bill by the minister. That’s the system which exists. I had the Metro Tenants Association approach prior to the introduction of the bill, wondering if they could be entertained by the minister to present their views in a constructive way. Could they be of assistance to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) before the bill was introduced, they asked, so as to allow the minister the opportunity of creating something for which he would not be severely criticized? A very interesting viewpoint.

The citizens were, in fact, offering the minister the opportunity to avoid criticism by opposition members. Although it less affords us the opportunity to criticize, surely it presents the government with the opportunity of presenting a less offensive bill. That, I submit, is first rate, first rate from the standpoint of being real leadership.

If the government could, in fact, invite opinion prior to its setting up of a bill, if it could invite opinion from the public, from all interested parties, it could in fact avoid for itself a great deal of problem and perhaps avoid a great deal of harassment not only from the opposition but from the media. Again, that needs government leadership.

So I say, to make it very clear, that what we have seen over the last 30 years is some form of political leadership and that may be rejected. It was partially rejected on Sept. 18. At some point in time that may be totally rejected. That is not the issue. I think the issue for the government of the day is to take a look at government leadership, to take a look at being innovative and to assuming a leadership role.

I do very much appreciate the opportunity of taking part in the debate on the Throne Speech. In conclusion, I viewed the Throne Speech as something like a wedding. The government, as the bride, had something old, that is rent control, which has been used in other jurisdictions and was used here during wartime; something new, the security of tenure measures for Ontario; something borrowed, the federal anti-inflation programme; and something blue, the feeling it left us with when we discovered that there was still no leadership. It is inevitable that at some time a divorce shall occur.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to have some dialogue on the Throne Speech. A while back I heard about a speaker who was told he would be speaking to a vast audience. He was disappointed because the hall was only half full. So I say here today, I am speaking to a half-vast audience.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I got your announcement. I read your circular letter.

Mr. Sargent: This is not the case here today because it is a very informed group and you have some big goings-on downstairs. One of our members is announcing today --

Mr. Kennedy: Which one?

Mr. Sargent: -- sealing the fate of the “big blue machine.”

Mr. Young: You are supporting him, are you?

Mr. Germa: I will support you.

Mr. Sargent: That will be the kiss of death.

Mr. Germa: I will be your campaign manager.

Mr. Sargent: If you can do as good a job for me as you did in Sudbury I’d give you $50,000 for that. I’m privileged to speak in this non-election year and I assure you that nothing will be political in my remarks at all.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Perish the thought.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t have any shots to take at you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know about the other Speaker but I think it is bad to talk behind his back. I do want to say, in retrospect, that over the years I guess I have been kind of unkind to Speakers but this man we have -- many of you don’t know it -- is a top jet pilot. He has checked out in jet aircraft. Why I say that is that in the parlance of flying a good pilot has good attitude with the horizon and I say he has good attitude insofar as it concerns dealing with all parties in the House. I give him full marks for the job he is doing, especially now at a time when for the first time, I guess, in over two decades we have a minority government situation, It’s a most trying time and I think he deserves our support and I’ll try to pledge him more support along the way.

I want to say I’m glad there is not going to be much heckling here today because that group over there are very well-mannered.

Mr. Kennedy: We have never heckled you.

Mr. Sargent: I say, with apologies to the lady members, that there is a story about heckling which members have probably heard. This fellow was speaking to his constituents and he spoke at some length and every once in a while someone in the back would say, “We want more land; we want more land.” This happened two or three times so finally some of the strong-armed members of his party went and grabbed this fellow who wanted more land. One grabbed him by the shoulders, the other guy grabbed him in front and the guy in front gave him a kick in the testicles. He said, “If you want more land there’s a couple of acres for you.” That’s a bit of an aside.

There’s a Chinese toast which goes something like this, “May you live in interesting times.” I think all of us are going through the most interesting times in the history of Ontario and I believe we’ve all had a belly-full of interesting times.

We have runaway inflation. A lot of people are going hungry; they can’t get their cheques. A friend of mine has an agency with 140 people working for him, and he said the other day that by Christmas he’d have to lay off 140 people because of the postal strike. We have strikes in every sector of our economy and this is building up to the fact that we need leadership.

About two weeks ago I was in a cab at the corner of Front and Bay; I had some heavy bags in the cab and I was going to the Royal York about 200 yards down the street. It took me half an hour to go that short distance because there were four different demonstrations on Front St. -- shouting and fighting and going back and forth. We couldn’t move; we were blocked.

I said to the cab driver, “What the hell’s happened to our country?” It made me stop and think. I really think we’ve been going on so long believing these things are going to continue, but what has happened to our country? There’s an old saying that if you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there. I say we are going downhill. I really believe that.

For example, our federal government has made an effort to set up controls. We have wage and prices pegged at 10 per cent increases. Pepin, heading up this Anti-Inflation Board, has written to 1,500 of the largest corporations saying, in effect, “Keep your records and executive salaries, wages costs and prices subject to review,” and saying the board will mete out rough justice. But today we have the postal strikers asking for 71 per cent. They may stay out till Easter as Mackasey is talking about. He is trying to save face while thousands of firms are going to go broke, and this is a fact. Many of the Toronto teachers have turned down an offer of $24,000. Last week 93,000 rail employees have given notice that they are going to strike and not obey the wage guidelines. Ten days ago five of the largest unions in Quebec said that they will loin the labour congress in Ontario and will rather go to jail than abide by the guidelines.

Where does all this lead us, Mr. Speaker? Have you ever wondered what you will be earning in the year 2000, 25 years hence, if salaries continue going up at their current rate of 9.3 per cent? By putting this into the computer and pressing the button I got some pretty startling figures. For example, if one is making $13,000 a year now, and the salary increase rate holds at 9.3 per cent, he will be pulling down $120,000 in 25 years. Going down the line, the salary of a person making $20,000 a year now at the present accrual will amount to $184,638. A person making $50,000 a year now will then be making $461,000 and a person making $80,000 a year will be making $738,000, and so on down the line to an executive making $100,000 now who will be then drawing down $923,000.

In effect, I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, if you wanted to go to the restaurant to have a hamburger you would need to take a wheelbarrow full of money to buy it. This is a fact. So I say to you and to this learned House how do we stop all of this? At what point do we stop it all? I talked this over last night with the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook). I said to him: “What the hell is the answer? How do we do this? How does anyone do this? How do you stop it?”

Today when you drive in for a gallon of gasoline in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, they sock you another five cents a gallon more, because of the government’s failure to cope. In the US market they have a price war down there on gasoline now. They are charging less for gasoline but we are paying five per cent more. Related to the average person in Ontario this is about $50 per person per year more this year because of the five cents increase in gasoline tax.

Oil companies are enjoying the biggest profits in history. It behoves this government to say to all of these multinational companies that if they want to enjoy our economy they should open their books. We should say we are going to force them to open their books to show cause why we must pay these prices. We have them telling us on TV about the giant exploration programme they are doing for the future generations. What they are doing is spending hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s not their money; that’s our money. It is oil depletion allowances that are supplying that money. They should be using their own money in this regard.

Why are we in trouble in Ontario? I admire in many ways the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) but, all of a sudden, this man is concerned and he is looking with alarm at our situation. He is down there flogging Ottawa, telling them to get cracking and moving on this deal. For the 13 years that I have been in this House many of us have been telling them what is going to happen. We had MacNaughton say we are facing a financial nightmare but they went tobogganing right down the road to hell to the situation we are in today.

[11:30]

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s a tough place to toboggan to.

Mr. Sargent: And it’s going to melt down at the bottom.

You talk about a credibility gap, and I am going to talk about that. The Treasurer’s footprints are all over the scene in the past 10 years -- past 12 years I guess. He is undoubtedly the world’s most unbelievable politician, and I say this kindly. Indeed, one could have made a fortune over the past 10 years betting the opposite to everything that this man has been involved with, whether you talk about regional government or whatever -- energy, or provincial Treasurer, economic controls.

Now we have watched the past month we have been here since the election. Going back, Mr. White had told me last year in the House that he would have a $326 million surplus in his budget. Exactly one year to the day, this year, in 12 calendar months, he had turned a $326 million surplus into a deficit of $2 billion. And that is a fact -- going down the pike, losing $8 million a day, including the interest we owe.

I read in the press this morning, in the Financial Post, that he is going to bring in, shortly, a mini-budget to make sure that the Ottawa controls work. That is one of the reasons why we are in trouble in Ontario because of the fact the Treasurer has been part of the overall blue machine, in that they have been using public funds for political purposes, right down the line. If anyone wants to check that, all they have got to do is start with the Spadina Expressway.

So here we are in the richest province of Canada -- in fact I say North America, including Texas. We are in the most serious financial mess since Confederation.

Mr. Kennedy: You are exaggerating.

Mr. Sargent: At the point in time when our technology can send a man to the moon, we commit ourselves to a $30 billion nuclear power programme, yet we can be so bastardly and dastardly negligent of the needs of people. In fact, the hospital charges across this province for, or right across the board to people -- We are taking hospital beds away from people and they can’t get their rights. You can put a man on the moon, but yen can’t get a hospital bed in my area and 345 people are waiting for elective surgery all the time. People are dying in the halls. They closed another hospital in my area last week.

The government is so corrupt that after 32 years in power, it has plundered the Treasury to the extent that we are $11 billion in debt. That’s 11 thousand million I am talking about, piled up. For two successive years they have had a deficit of 10 per cent and 20 per cent, back to back. This, according to accounting principles, is treading dangerously close to insolvency. It is so corrupt that it has raided every pension fund to the extent of about $7 billion, and there is not a nickel left in any pension fund in this province.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that that’s parliamentary language. I don’t think one member should accuse any group of members of being corrupt.

Mr. Sargent: You run that chair and I’ll run this chair, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is what I am attempting to do and I would suggest the member moderate his language.

Mr. Sargent: If you want to rule me out of order, you go right ahead. I am saying what I think, what I know to be true, and this is a fact. If you would do your homework you would know it’s a fact.

Mr. Kennedy: That is a serious charge.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t think it is parliamentary language.

Mr. Sargent: Well, I will continue to do it until they open the books and show us. We haven’t had a public audit in this province, ever. They are afraid to open their books. It ill behoves the Speaker to take me apart when we are so badly broke that we are $11 billion in debt, and losing $8 million a day, and you take me to task.

Mr. Speaker: I am taking you to task for the language that you are using, I think if you are going to accuse someone of being corrupt, I think you should be prepared to back those statements up.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the report of the select committee on the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario on the investigation of the Moog and Davis hotel across here. If you want to have some good reading, if you want a best seller, put this in paperback form and sell it; it’ll make Watergate look like peanuts. That is a fact. Study it, and then talk to me about ethics in addressing this House.

I’ve been in this business all my life and the most honourable thing a guy can do is open his books and show the public how his money is being spent. It isn’t their money. It belongs to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, you got me off my speech. We have a case in Owen Sound. We had the great train robbery. They took away our trains up there. We have no trains to get into the place. It takes a person in Walkerton a day and a half to get to Toronto to hospital. We have had roads; the worst roads in Ontario in my area. Now RCA Victor has closed down, putting 280 people out of work.

As all hon. members know, Mr. Winkler stood with the Premier (Mr. Davis) in my riding and told 4,000 people, “I have in my pocket a cheque for $500,000. I assure you all -- ” and television and radio were there and caught his speech “ -- I tell you all that this $500,000 will guarantee that this plant will not close, no man will lose his job and we will even expand the operation.”

When that one statement came out in the press, it ended the career of one man who served all his life in politics. He had been a great citizen in many ways, but that one statement killed him. He tried to deny he had said that, but they did a playback on TV and radio and it was established that he made those statements.

I went back to them and asked the government if they would honour the $500,000 and they said no, they wouldn’t. I said to the Premier one day in the House, “If Mr. Winkler had been re-elected, would you have honoured the $500,000?” He wouldn’t answer that. But we do have a pal up at Minaki Lodge, in the north country. It has a book value of about $1.25 million. They had a preliminary loan of $675,000 and that didn’t work, so they give them another loan of $5 million for a plant worth $1.25 million. There is no term on the loan, no interest, no pay-back dates. Part of the directorship is head of the conservative association in northern Ontario.

We have 300 jobs down my way going down the pipe because they won’t give us a venture capital deal with the province. All we needed was $1.5 million to put this show on the road. We couldn’t get it. That’s the RCA Victor story. The Minaki story is beautiful. They still haven’t paid back one cent on their $5 million. We have this ODC, which is the loans-of-last-resort programme. Who gets the money? Large American corporations in the excess profits brackets are getting millions of dollars. One firm, a US computer firm, got $6 million; it employed only about 20 or 30 people. When the yardstick is to loan money at the rate of $20,000 per job, what do we get? Do they even honour the promises they made?

We have a hospital in Owen Sound, and while $951 million in federal moneys is coming into this province, our portion’s not going up there.

This morning, in the House, I asked the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) if he would take steps toward finding out whether it would be easier to go through the OPP or the RCMP to get a search warrant to get the records requested last night by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). He had no opinion on this subject as to whether that would be possible. He had no opinion whether we should have to resort to those tactics. The facts are that the top land appraiser, as the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) mentioned last night, recommended that land in the Saltfleet development be pegged at $2,000 an acre. His appraisers verified all that but they ended up paying $4,000 an acre -- $6 million instead of $3 million -- and somebody made $3 million profit along the line. Right after they got the $6 million cheques, the firm went broke; it went out of business. We have asked repeatedly for the minutes of the meeting but the government will not provide these minutes. The fact is the man who was in charge of the land acquisition programme resigned from this department because in his quotes to me be said he could not stand the political pressure in letting these deals go through. Now he is in charge of a large department in federal housing in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No political risks there.

Mr. Sargent: At least he will be investigated by the RCMP. That’s something we can’t do here.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s not my fault.

Mr. Sargent: I’m sorry. What I am concerned about in this economy is that we have here 40 per cent of the population of Canada and somebody has to be driving this province, making sure it works. If the Premier had been on the ball he would have had a postal service going a month ago.

We have a situation in this country in which the tail is wagging the dog and it’s going to end up this way -- either the unions are going to run the country or government is going to run the country, either one way or the other. I suggest with all respect to labour that it is no time for labour to become panicky; they must use their heads. They must supply some leadership in solving the nation’s problems and getting our country back on its feet.

Mayor LaGuardia at one time said, “Labour always has problems which must be solved with employers and capital.” It is fair to speak frankly on that point, too. He said:

“A strike is the last means of solution and not the first. It is justifiable only after the resource of discussion and negotiation has been tried and has failed. During strikes it must always be remembered that the public interest is paramount. The safety of great masses of people, not parties to the discussion, and the functioning of government can never be at stake in government; can never be at stake in a bargaining process. [Finally he says] Starvation is not a legitimate weapon for capital to use against labour. It is no more legitimate for labour to use it against the public.”

We do know that currently Ontario is having trouble with the bond market in New York.

The word is out that investors have told Hydro or told the government of Ontario that the $300 million it is after now is the end of the line. There will be no more moneys available for the Province of Ontario.

In closing, in the short-term view of this House and Ontario politics, I find this situation here a day-to-day process which, in my opinion, may last a week or three or four years. The fact is, none of us has any money, no party has any money, to have an election so the government is pretty safe, I think, but it can be a volatile situation in which we can be the key. I also hope that this minority government can be a meaningful one. In the past, minority governments have produced good legislation and I hope it can here. But I think we all agree very sincerely, that all of us have the intuitive feeling we have gone down the welfare road too long. The free meal you get may be the most expensive one you ever had.

[11:45]

Mr. Johnson: It is indeed a privilege and an honour to engage in this debate today. I would like to begin by expressing my sincerest congratulations to the Speaker on his election to the office of Speaker, and also to the Deputy Speaker on his election; and to you sir, in your position as Deputy Chairman. In the short time I’ve been in the House I have found you to be very fair and impartial, and I wish you well in the difficult days ahead. Without a doubt your task will be an onerous one, as partisanship will reach full bloom in the weeks and months to come.

To speak after the member for Grey-Bruce is indeed an unexpected honour; although indeed it will be a hard act to follow.

An hon. member: Don’t try.

Mr. Johnson: Since I am new to the House I will confine my remarks to the part of Ontario that I know best, and that’s my riding. I am proud to come before this Legislature as the successor to one of Ontario’s finest and most sincere public servants, John Root. Mr. Root served this House and served the people of the riding well for 24 years; his diligence and hard work will be greatly missed. He has set for me a fine example and a high standard.

I enter this Legislature representing the riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, an area of nearly 4,500 sq. miles. Our constituency stretches over 90 miles from east to west and over 50 miles from north to south. It contains a population of over 60,000 people. This riding is basically rural; there are hundreds of small independent farmers, numerous hamlets and little subdivisions; several smaller commercial service centres; villages and a few industrial towns, the largest having a population of fewer than 6,000 people.

In the last few years there has been quite an influx of commuters into this riding, especially in the southern and eastern sections. We have a very high percentage of senior citizens, many retired from the towns and villages and surrounding townships. There are also many city people who prefer the quiet country life for their retirement years. In fact, I would think my riding has one of the highest percentages of senior citizens in all of Ontario.

Therefore I am most pleased that the Throne Speech has emphasized our need to deal with inflation, rents, mortgage interest rates and tenant security, all of which effect our senior citizens as much, or more, than any single group in Ontario. We recognize that those on fixed or limited incomes are least able to cope with inflationary pressures and ever-spiralling costs.

I am most concerned with the position of the senior citizens in Ontario. No group deserves more consideration. They have made a life-long contribution to our country, our society and our community. They have created the quality of life we in Ontario are privileged to enjoy. The riches of Ontario should, and must, be shared with those who have lived through a depression and two world wars. Senior citizens have a demand on society that is not a call for charity but rather a claim on the resources they have created. There must be no such thing as a fixed income for senior citizens. Incomes must reflect changing living costs and our government has recognized this need in a number of ways.

For example, the Guaranteed Annual Income Supplement has been raised four times since the programme was implemented just over a year ago, and effective Oct. 1 of this year yet another such increase was approved to offset rising costs of living. In the area of health care, the Ontario drug benefit plan has been established to assist senior citizens in all parts of our province. Even moderate prescription drug costs can be a drain on a pensioner’s income. For this reason the expense of essential prescription drugs has been removed thereby benefiting more than 750,000 senior citizens in Ontario.

Further health services, such as the visiting nurse programme and the home care programme, have done much to ensure that people are kept out of hospitals and in their homes. This range of services must be continued and extended to help people to remain in their own environment.

In an effort to offset the upward pressure on property taxes, both the property tax credit and pensioner tax credit have been increased. I am sure the new rent supplement programme for senior citizens which will be introduced during this session of the Legislature will receive approval from all parts of the province. A high priority should and must be placed on the building of senior citizen apartment units for this coming year. It is interesting to note that in 1964, or just over a decade ago when the OHC was created, only 36 senior citizen apartment units were in existence. Today there are 23,134 such units and another 3,971 under construction right now. I welcome the initiatives of our government in this area and I will strongly support the construction and improvement of such facilities.

Agriculture is the backbone of our riding and must be preserved. The retention of the family farm must remain a high priority of this government. Policies should be continued and improved to assist the farmers to survive against ever increasing costs of production. The Ontario young farmer credit programme gives assistance to young people wanting to get into farming. At the same time, the Gift Tax and Succession Duty Acts give big concessions to members of a farming family wishing to continue on the land. The land speculation tax has done much to keep the speculator out of the natural escalation of land costs. This initiative has been welcomed in all parts of my riding.

Loans for farm development and assistance in time of trouble further show this government’s concern for the farmer. Programmes such as the tile drainage loan, adverse weather loan, beef-heifer loan, industrial milk incentive programme and the capital grant programme are all policies which will be of advantage to our farmers.

Many will benefit from the new beef-calf income stabilization programme. While the guaranteed 50 cents per pound for stock or calves is not high enough for some people, it will be adjusted in future years. We must remember that it is not intended as a quick way to high profits but rather as an insurance to soften the blow during lean years in this important part of the beef industry.

One important point I should like to make at this time is that every time a large wage settlement is made to industry, it nearly always comes back to the farmer in the form of increased costs of production. Small businessmen too must receive the backing of government if they are to survive against the corporate giants. Statistics Canada in a breakdown of incomes showed the average small retailer earning slightly over $9,000 a year. The small independent farmer earns just a few hundred dollars more, and in many cases the wife is also working without pay. They have no unions to demand 30 or 40 per cent increases and they have no job security or unemployment insurance. They need guaranteed loans now at reasonable rates of interest for renovation and expansion.

Many small businesses cannot operate on Sunday; most of them cannot afford the extra cost of operating seven days a week. It puts prohibitive pressures on them and will eventually cause many to close. We should not be exerting such pressure on small businesses, for their increased costs will subsequently be passed on to the consumers. That portion of the Throne Speech which seeks to reaffirm Sundays and holidays as days of restricted commercial activity is, in my opinion, excellent legislation. I hope the majority of this House will approve this bill.

The small towns and municipalities of our province desperately need an influx of labour-oriented industries; not large corporations but small, clean industries which can grow within their communities. This would have the twofold advantage of providing employment for our young people and alleviating some of the congestion in our larger cities.

The Speech from the Throne suggests the establishment of an industrial parks programme which would offer financial aid to municipalities to acquire and service facilities for this purpose. I know this initiative will receive province-wide approval, especially in the rural areas. Many people -- salesmen, labourers, professional people; and yes, even politicians -- prefer to live in our smaller towns or in the countryside but are forced to find employment in or near the cities.

Young people and students who do not own cars and senior citizens who are not able to drive any longer are among those many people who need transportation to the cities, especially Toronto. The need for better rail and bus facilities for these people is essential. I would personally like to see the establishment of GO trains from Toronto to Guelph and from Toronto to Shelburne with connecting bus lines linking up the smaller communities.

Tourism is one of the neglected assets of our beautiful area, indeed most of mid-western Ontario. We promote our cities, lakes and ski areas but we neglect to sell our lovely countryside, the quaint little communities, the beautiful hills, the streams and the forests. With proper organization and promotion could we not sell family farm vacations, a week or two in a small town or country vacation home?

It is being done now, but I think it deserves much more scope, especially today when we’re confronted by so much violence in the large American cities. A project like this would not only create employment and earn tourist dollars but, more important, it would not deplete any of our natural resources.

Speaking of natural resources brings me to one of the major problems in my riding, gravel quarries. I hope that before any more permits are granted serious consideration will be given not only to the controlled operation of these pits but to the effect on the areas involved. The consequences of these operations include noise pollution and extensive use of highways. I further hope that consideration will be given to a continuous rehabilitation programme to be carried out as the pit is being excavated. Much thought and planning must go into this very controversial issue before we misuse such an important natural resource.

[12:00]

In conclusion, I wish to express my appreciation to the voters of my riding for the confidence they have shown in me. With your help, Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to deserve it.

Mr. Moffatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure for me to be here and to take part in this particular Throne debate in a minority situation. I would like to pay tribute to two or three people first, if I may. First of all to the Speaker, who is from the riding on my immediate east and whom I have known for a number of years; and to the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), who was a classmate of mine in high school. I don’t know where he has gone wrong since. Somewhere along the line he ended up over there, but I wish to congratulate him nonetheless.

I would like to begin with a bit of an observation about the area, part of which I represent, known as the region of Durham. The reason I want to pay some attention to that particular area is because everybody else has been paying such great attention to it, particularly the provincial government.

Over the past several years, the region of Durham has been victimized, I think is the proper word, by successive provincial government policies. I would like to list those policies and then suggest what some of the problems have been as a result of them.

I would like to go back to 1968 when the first problem of a massive provincial nature was visited upon the Durham area. That was the reorganization of the school boards into county school boards; something, by the way, which to a great extent is still not understood by the people there, particularly in the rural areas. People in the urban areas haven’t noticed too much change and the only change they have seen, really, is that their taxes have increased and they don’t understand why the thing happened anyway.

The next significant impact event on Durham was the announcement of the Pickering Airport in 1972. Of course, we are aware of what has happened with that, at least at this point in time.

Cedarwood was another area of provincial innovation, brought forth in 1972; supposedly at that time to have a population of 200,000 people on 25,000 acres of land at a cost initially of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150 million to start.

The next little pipe dream, and I use the word advisedly, was the York-Durham servicing scheme which was announced in 1974. This was a 96 million gallon-per-day sewage plant which was to serve all of that Duffin Creek watershed and areas to the south of the Pine Ridge. Cost of that was to be $186 million, and that was dropped into the laps of those people in Durham.

In the same area were the Stouffville landfill site, which is operating; the Pickering landfill site, which has been approved; and the Port Hope landfill scheme, which was under review and has now been put under some kind of restraining order.

The next item which came along to make life easier for the people in Durham was Durham regional government; which if you recall in its initial stages was to stretch from the Rouge River to include Cobourg and Port Hope. Cobourg and Port Hope were in the final stages eliminated from that particular scheme; I would suggest because of the local citizen participation.

Highway 407, which is proposed in 1975, is to go through all of the region of Durham and split it into two segments, which will pose significant problems for the area. The Parkway Belt East is held over the heads of the people of Durham like some sort of Damoclean sword. Nobody really knows where it is going to be, how it is going to be, or indeed if it is going to be.

One of the other items, which is a follow-up perhaps to a previous mistake, was the development of Pickering nuclear plant number one. Then, in 1979, we have Pickering nuclear plant number two. To go along with that, we have the Wesleyville oil-fired generating system which is to come on stream in 1978 at a cost of $460 million. We have the Bowmanville nuclear station, which is to come on stream in 1980, and that cost is to be at least double the cost of the Wesleyville site; no one really is sure, it is skyrocketing each day. We have the central Lake Ontario fossil-fuel generating station which is to be somewhere in that area and is to come into operation in 1986. Apparently, the cost of that is estimated at $763 million, but nobody knows yet what it will be.

The Wesleyville nuclear station, which is somewhere in the mists of the future, is to come into operation in 1990. The whole business, if I may suggest, is the cause of a great deal of attention by the provincial government to the region of Durham; so much attention, might I suggest, that the people are fed up to the teeth with the attention they have been given. Every five or six months another scheme comes out to restructure, reorganize, restrain, change or give some kind of additional development to that particular area. It is significant that out of four seats in the last provincial election in the region of Durham three of them are held by opposition members. The fourth was very close, less than 200 votes, I think.

I might suggest that kind of citizen participation is the sort of thing the government should pay attention to. If I may suggest, the problems which have been foisted upon those people have been mainly problems of a government which is attempting to react to a post-industrial society that it doesn’t understand. I have heard previous speakers in this debate on the government side refer to the problems of citizen or activist groups, or whatever term is currently in vogue. I think that’s a phenomenon which the government really does not understand. It does not comprehend the fact that most of those groups are a direct result of government action or reaction, which has been at some point ill-conceived or ill-advised.

I am not one of those people who tends to think the government is a collection of Machiavellian figures, hell-bent on putting the people of this province into some kind of subservience to multi-national corporations or whatever. Whether that is the case or not, I am not sure whether the action doesn’t seem to hear out that kind of belief. Those people who believe those things listen to the various speeches from that side of the House and come to the conclusion that maybe those things are true. I would like to see the government in this particular situation act in a positive fashion to dispel some of those particular beliefs.

It seems to me if we are indeed going to have a province where people will be able to believe in peace, order and good government, we would have a government which would at least put forward some kind of overall provincial strategy which would let the people out there know what is in store for us over the next few years, not in specific terms but in broad-brush sort of terms which would give some sense of the direction in which this province is going to go.

I have been involved in education and in municipal planning for a number of years. At every point where a decision had to be made at the local level in planning or education or municipal government of any sort, we always ran into the problem of not knowing what the province had in store for a particular idea or site or location or concept. We would try to put forward some kind of plan for the community and then we would run smack into a parkway belt; and we couldn’t, of course, find out from the government exactly where the parkway belt was going to be.

There are various reasons, I suppose, for that. The reason often given is that shyster speculators will move in and take over. Just as an aside, it is always amazing to me, whenever information is supposedly withheld it is because of those cruel and evil people, the speculators. Yet when we turn around, in the same breath the government seems to defend that particular group of people from time to time much more vehemently than it seems to me they really are capable of doing.

Mr. Grossman: The government put them out of business through the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Mr. Kennedy: Those who rent out apartments don’t think so.

Mr. Moffatt: The interesting thing is that those particular people have constantly known ahead of time what was going to happen anyway. As long ago as six years I saw plans for the parkway belt and Highway 407 which were supposedly pilfered in some fashion from various offices in Toronto which really gave a very clear indication of where the parkway belt was going to be and so on. Those plans were held by a gentleman representing some Swiss investors. I think that whole business has been far overblown.

What I urge the government to do is, once and for all, put some guts into the real business of running this province and tell the municipalities and the people out there just where we are heading. If a parkway belt and a 407 and all of the other grand schemes are in store for us, approximately where will they he and when will they be? That’s the kind of thing the municipal people need in order to have some kind of workable plan.

They cannot work in a vacuum. The vacuum they inhabit right now, it seems to me, is going to stifle their interest and their involvement to the point where eventually municipal people are going to say: “Why bother? There is no point in us planning, there is no point in us taking initiative because every time we do we run into a provincial government which seems to be able to shift its feet as quickly as some of the football players in last Sunday’s game.”

It seems to me that for a long time we have heard of the kind of province some people would like to have but we have no idea as to how we are going to get there. I implore the government to go back to the kinds of thinking that Richard Tollman advocated before he was turfed out or sacked or whatever the philosophical statement was. Tollman came up with souse very good ideas as far as regional planning and regional development was concerned. He separated those two ideas and he advised this particular government -- he was an employee of the government -- in his writings and his documents that there is a good concept for the Province of Ontario which could be modified and put in place within a relatively short time span.

Nothing seems to happen. We heard about the Toronto-centred region and then it disappeared. It keeps coming back in little dribs and drabs, altered and modified in various ways. I urge the government to act on that particular concept in the next few months.

I’d like to talk for a few minutes about some of the legislation which has come in. I find it intriguing that the people on the other side are concerned about what will happen with that wild socialist idea called rent control. It is going to put down all of the developers and all of the renters in this province and is going to create of this province a land of chaos.

It’s intriguing that all the arguments made against that particular bit of legislation seem to change from this side of the House to that side of the House and then back again, depending upon whose idea it currently is. I think every person in this House has grave reservations about rent control. There may be the odd variation in the degree of reservation but everyone realizes that rent control is not the answer to a housing shortage.

That’s obviously a situation which has been created when houses are in short supply and rental accommodation, in a great many municipalities, is in short supply. The government did not bring in that legislation because of the screaming of, this particular opposition party or the opposition party on my left. The government realized part-way through the election campaign, in the same fashion as every other candidate realized, when he got 100 phone calls a week from people whose rents had doubled and tripled, that there is a problem.

That’s why, all of a sudden, all three parties were talking about rent control. That’s why all three parties had to react and support that particular legislation. The rent control situation deals with the problem of rent gouging only. Let’s not be confused and talk about rent control legislation as solving the housing problem. Of course, it doesn’t.

I call upon the government and the other party to make sure that initiatives to put new housing in place are begun in the very near future. I don’t want to hear in the next short while all of the old saws about leaving it to free enterprise and they’ll produce the housing; or, on the other hand, nationalizing all the land and that will produce all of the housing --

[12:15]

Mr. Grossman: You will hear it.

Mr. Moffatt: -- because we will hear both stories, I am sure. I am trying to say that what we need to do is to embark upon this problem in a creative fashion, rather than in an ideological fashion. The problem is one of housing shortage, and the problem needs to be solved by action, forthright action by the government, supported by the private sector when it’s possible. But if the private sector, as they have been doing for the last five years, continue to remove their investment funds from housing, then there is no alternative but for the public sector to take the housing problem squarely by the horns and to go into the business of solving it.

I am not suggesting that that is the first alternative. I am suggesting that that is an alternative that cannot be put aside because of some antediluvian philosophical nightmare that various members may have from time to time.

I realize that there are many people who are pensioners, who have worked for a number of years in factories and so on. In my particular riding I know it’s the case that these people have saved up enough money to buy a second home, a duplex or whatever, and they use that as their retirement property. Those people, for the most part, have not been involved in the speculative kind of whirlwind that has pushed prices of rent to their present levels. But those people are as concerned about rent control as are the Cadillac developers of this particular province.

Those people didn’t create the problem. The people who are into the business of ripping off the particular renters are the ones who created the problem. I would hope that we will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff when we listen to the arguments of various people as regards rent control. It’s a situation which has brought a violent public reaction demanding rent control. I think the situation needs to be cleared up, not just the particular reaction.

I would like to comment on a couple of other pieces of legislation which have come forward. The legislation dealing with seatbelts is before the House and I am going to deal with that at great length on the next legislative day. I think, though, that as a companion to that legislation the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced on the particular day when he announced the seatbelt legislation, that we would have reductions in speed limits, which were to act in a two-fold way. They were to solve the tremendous number of accidents being caused on the highways. That was one thing they were to do. The second thing, of course, is that lower speeds are supposed to save fuel.

I think that the second argument is perhaps specious, to say the least. It has been calculated that about one per cent of the fuel used at present will be saved. And if we have such a tremendous energy problem in petroleum, as the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) seems to indicate, I would like to see the documentation which can prove to us exactly what our energy reserves are and which can show us what we are going to do to guarantee supply in specific terms, and what this particular government is willing to do in order to make sure that the business of petroleum continues to be a Canadian and an Ontario business, rather than a multinational one.

We are caught in the hands of international gangsters and it seems to me that the reluctance of the government to act on that particular issue is one which the public perceives as being, at least, gutless. It seems that if the government wants to regain the credibility that was so evident in 1971, there is one area where it might well take a pretty strong stand.

If we continue to fritter away the resources of this province in the way we have, we won’t have to debate very much longer. We won’t need to worry about who supplies the oil; we won’t have to question prices, because any price will be possible. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the government, that those particular interests which now dominate and completely control our energy in petroleum terms in this country, need to be taken on by this government and in very clear terms made to understand that the people of Ontario will not tolerate the kind of cavalier treatment we have received in the past.

I’m concerned about the document tabled by the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) last week, dealing with the review of the government programmes. Never in my experience -- and I admit to being a novice in this -- have I seen a document which attempts, so carefully and in such a direct fashion, to take apart every programme which the government has bragged about over the past 10 years, in the delivery areas where people are directly affected. I would hope, as the debate goes on with regard to that particular document, that we do have some clear statement by the members opposite as to how far we’re prepared to implement what, in my view, is a completely reactionary document.

One particular comment in that document was that university grants should be severely curtailed and students should rely more upon loans and their own resources in order to enter university. I say that is not a statement which we should hear in the 1970s; in the Victorian age perhaps. Even then, I suspect there were people who questioned whether entry to a university or a college should be determined by the size of one’s father’s pocketbook rather than one’s ability. That kind of statement in that document will return us to that sort of thing more quickly than anything I can imagine.

I really think we have gone a long way in the past 20 years in encouraging people who are able to go to university in order that they may contribute to our society.

Mr. Grossman: The last 32 years.

Mr. Moffatt: With some speed, in 32 years it should be possible to do many things. If the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick wants to refer to the progress we’ve made in 32 years, that is fine with me; I’ll say 32 years.

Mr. Grossman: It’s not enough time.

Mr. Moffatt: What is happening, of course, is at the end of 32 years we’re going to take it apart and we’re going to go back to where we were before that 32-year period began. I don’t want to pursue that argument because I’m sure the member is aware of the consequences of that sort of thing. It seems to me there was another gentleman who was Premier at that time and he’s been the subject of great debate ever since. I don’t want to return to those days and I suspect the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick might not like that spectre hanging over his head.

It seems to me, to touch on a couple of more items, that there is a significant problem in our society which is not being dealt with at all. This problem relates to a great number of people who live in my riding. It doesn’t relate to indecision; it relates to wrong-headedness, if you will.

People in my particular riding range from those in the highly urbanized downtown core to a very rural area. We have all of the problems of rural people who want to protect their particular environment and we have all of the problems of people living in slum conditions in the city.

It seems to me that until we start to deal with people instead of dollar figures in this province we will not be working toward the kind of society I’m sure all of us would like to see. I think we deal in a very negative fashion with the farm community and I think we deal in a negative fashion with small businessmen. We say to the small businessmen, “You’re great independent people. You believe in free enterprise, whatever that is.” They say, “Yes, we certainly do. We heartily endorse free enterprise.” And then we let free enterprise take them apart. We see that with the small gasoline dealers right now who are being totally dissected by the exploitation built in to a particular system.

We see that in the farm community, too, where the exploitive nature of the present system is willing and able to destroy completely what was the strength of this province. I talked at great length with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) about what we need to do. I’m confused because that man has so quickly forgotten that before he was elevated to his present position, he used to obtain his living out on the farm. I would challenge him today to go back to that particular business -- indeed, I hoped on Sept. 8 that he would be able to do that, but he was not -- because it seems to me that if he had to go back to making his entire living from that farm, he would be the first person to realize that it is not possible today to do so with any kind of security or any kind of future.

The people who are farming today are farming in a part-time fashion, not by choice but by the circumstances into which they have been forced. Unless we in this province are willing to attack the problem of farm income very quickly, we are going to see the complete disappearance of the farm community -- and that will be a loss that none of the members in this House will applaud.

I cannot understand the reluctance of this particular government in dealing with the farm income stabilization programme. The farm community itself has pleaded for it. I could quote an editorial from what is regarded in eastern Ontario as the Toriest of Tory newspapers. It is owned by Dr. Johnston, a name that I am sure is familiar to members on the opposite side. In the election, Dr. Johnston advocated that the farmers of eastern Ontario think twice before they “go blindly out” at election time to vote Tory again because “the Tory government has not looked after the interests of rural Ontario.” That’s not me; that’s one of the Tories’ own people. If they cannot see the writing on the wail, what can they see? When is the government going to move in a direction that will protect the farm community? They have wasted away a resource and when it finishes, if they do not do something, it will be on their heads.

In closing, I would like to talk very briefly about what was my profession for 15 years, what I think has happened and what I think will happen. I refer to the education system which has been built up in this province.

I am concerned that, with the advent of the county boards, we got into what I think has been referred to as a businesslike system of education. And you can see it. Boy, can you see it. If you go into any school board, the most important thing that happens in any particular school board is what goes on at the board office. We build an edifice and stuff it with people with degrees and long service records who style themselves as directors, superintendents, coordinators and so on.

But when we finish with the particular system, what have we got? We’ve got a system. We then go out into the community and say, “Boy, have we got a system for you. We are going to be able to programme people through our schools. We’ll use computers; you won’t see a report card anymore. A computer will now print the kids’ report cards. You will get a photostat, instead of that old-fashioned report card, because that is efficient in business terms. We can hire a bookkeeper, an auditor, an accountant and all of those people in the realm of business and we will be able to tell you at a minute’s notice how much money we plan to spend. We will be able to tell you at a minute’s notice what our plans are for the next five years as far as capital expenditure goes. We will be able to tell you how many rolls of toilet paper the school board purchased in 1972” -- and what happened to it, I suppose.

Nowhere in the entire process, however, do we talk about what the schools were originally supposed to be about. What we need to get back to, it seems to me, is the business of a school being nothing unless it does something for the young people who happen to be captured by it every morning at 9 o’clock. I hear so many discussions about the rights of this group and that group. What are the rights of the kids? It seems to me that somewhere we must get back to the point where a school is oriented to a particular community and that the teachers in that particular school get to know the parents and the kids on a personal basis. What we have now are gigantic factories with orange feeders running to them each day. We bundle the people into a bus and push them into some school 15, 20 or 30 miles away, and they emerge at 3:30, unchanged from the way they went in in the morning. That’s a failure. The member can shake his head if he wishes, but I have seen that happen so many times.

[12:30]

The biggest problem, it seems to me is the fact that we want to create a facade of efficiency when all we need really to do is talk about the kind of thing we want to go on in that school, which is the relationship between the teacher and the student. I don’t really care how many inspectors we have or how many superintendents we have, because all they really do is make sure nobody steps out of line. That’s all they really do. They become apologists for the system rather than creators of the system, and that’s wrong.

I listened to the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) in his estimates explain to me the most marvellous philosophical statement of what he thought education should be in this province. I endorse wholeheartedly the words that man spoke that day, but they do not get transformed out there in the classroom into something meaningful. Every time one turns around the teachers are frustrated by decisions taken at some other level. The directive that the minister gives out starts out at his office, goes to the Mowat block, goes to the regional office, goes to the director, goes to the superintendent of instruction, then to the superintendent of an area, then to the principal, then to the teacher and just maybe it then goes to the students.

That’s a complete failure. It doesn’t do anything at all for the people who are the key to it all. I submit that the government won’t solve the problem by creating bigger units. What it emphatically must do is create in each local school the kind of atmosphere that allows the teacher to feel secure, challenged and worthwhile. When that happens, we’ll have happen with students the thing that’s called education, where people suddenly start to learn because there’s something worth learning. What is going on now is custodianship. We’re more concerned about keeping the people off the streets. If the government listens to the cries about the current problems in Toronto with regard to the secondary schools, the biggest single complaint is the fact that the kids are home all the time. That’s an atrocious kind of thing.

Mr. Gregory: Teachers aren’t teaching.

Mr. Moffatt: I don’t understand what you said.

Mr. Jones: That makes two of us.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Moffatt: Would you like them to agree on what they disagree with me about, Mr. Speaker, and then I’ll continue?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Moffatt: I’ll be glad to. In closing, it seems that what we need is local involvement. I think every member over there talks about it from time to time, though it’s not stylish to admit that the government has been less than successful. In every single case, we talk about involvement at the local level. This party talked about it in the election. We gave lip service to it; so did members opposite. We all said “We are giving back local autonomy.” That’s a truism -- everybody talks about doing it, but nobody does it. When it comes time to take the risk of giving the local people a chance to do something, we back up and say “Just a minute now.” Members know that’s what happens and that’s exactly what’s wrong. That’s what’s wrong in the schools, that’s what’s wrong in the municipalities, and that’s what’s wrong in this province. We don’t have any faith in the fact that people can once in a while come to a conclusion and a decision themselves.

I know for a fact that the member who is chipping in all the time, when he gets back to his own riding will talk exactly this way. He’ll want community involvement. If there’s a problem, if somebody wants to push through a new highway and it goes through his riding, boy, will he have community involvement. He’ll be the biggest advocate for it. We all do that, every person in this House. When it suits us we fight the government. We’re setting an example for people by doing that, when, instead, what we should be doing is encouraging people to take the initiative themselves by providing the opportunity for them so to do and then backing them up.

People make mistakes in those situations, but when they make the mistakes they’re willing to accept them as their own and they don’t boot out half a government, which happened on Sept. 18. If the government continues in the present fashion, whenever it happens again that we go through all of that door-knocking business, if it doesn’t change its ways, they’re going to take care of the rest of it.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of the House to recognize and join with me today in welcoming to the Legislature, 33 grade 8 students and their teacher, Mrs. Nyilas from St. Madelaine French School located in the fair riding of Oriole.

Mrs. Sandeman: May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to ask the House to join with me in welcoming grade 9 and 10 students from Millbrook High School, with their teacher Miss Harridge.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in this debate, regarding the Speech from the Throne, I’m very pleased to bring greetings from the citizens of Hamilton West and the best wishes of those citizens to all members in all parties in our deliberations here. The election was quite a difficult one, a closely and well-fought election and I think that rather than bring in bitter partisan feelings, my electors would like me to come in with constructive suggestions whenever I possibly can. That’s a message which I shall try to convey as accurately as possible within the confines of this House.

I want, of course, also to preface my remarks by conveying greetings and congratulations to the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and, of course, to the member presently occupying the Speaker’s chair and to wish all three gentlemen every success in their decisions and deliberations.

Hamilton West is part of the urban industrialized city of Hamilton and of course now part of the Hamilton-Wentworth region. It is a very interesting riding and the problems which we encounter there are problems which I would hope would be of interest to members of this House, not only because it is part of our great province but because in a way, Hamilton West is a microcosm of urban Ontario. It has a very wide distribution of incomes. There are a great many ethnic groups represented in the riding in great numbers. There are many interesting traditions represented in Hamilton West.

There has been a fair amount of building going on in the core of the city in terms of high-rise apartments. There have been some real concerns with preservation of neighbourhoods and all the urban issues which so many of us are familiar with in different parts of this province.

I would like to say that there is a particular problem in the whole city of Hamilton which I want to bring to the attention of members of this Legislature -- a problem with which you may or may not be familiar. I would ask you just to think for a moment of the place of Hamilton in Ontario. You know that heavy industry has been quite a boon to Ontario. You know also that we’ve all profited from being an industrial centre for the rest of our great country. I know it’s not news to anyone here that a good part of this heavy industry is located in the city that I have the honour to represent.

This heavy industry, however, used to be considered nothing but a virtue since, after all, it brought economic benefits to an area. In view of the changes which have occurred in politics, we now know it to be a mixed blessing. I’m sure everyone here realizes that heavy industry brings with it certain costs and certain difficulties which can be somewhat oppressive to a region unless they’re given a little help in mitigating these effects. The effects I’m speaking of, of course, have to do with the social cost of heavy industry, the health costs related to pollution, the problems in terms of property values and so on, the need for recreational space and the need for some relief from the metal and concrete, the smoke and the fumes which of course are a necessary part of heavy industry as presently constituted. I would pot it to the members of this Legislature that the citizens of Hamilton have not really had an utterly fair deal in this regard.

I think we have been basing the burden of heavy industry in that particular region and have really not had much help in mitigating some of the negative effects of these industries. We know that despite reasonable efforts on the part of the Ministry of the Environment and of the industries concerned, what could have been a precious natural resource in that area, namely Hamilton Bay -- those who know Hamilton will be aware of the beautiful setting of that city, comparable to some of the most beautiful cities in Europe, where you have a mountain and a fine location surrounding a bay with some beautiful views -- has almost been ruined, It has almost been totally destroyed by the way in which the effects of heavy industry have been allowed to go unmitigated.

Mr. Nixon: That’s where the Minister of the Environment walked on the water wasn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, he had a good swim.

Mr. S. Smith: I intend to make a few comments about that later on, as I am sure the minister expects me to. I do want the people in the Legislature, if I might just have their attention for another moment, to understand that there are problems which are not totally the fault of the provincial government and never have been. They are as much the fault of short-sighted municipal governments, as much the fault of the federal government over the years and as much the fault of such agencies as the CNR. Somehow or other, governments in general have failed to serve the people well in Hamilton from the point of view of mitigating the effects of these industries. Hamilton, for instance, has a much lower parkland-to-population ratio, particularly in the part of the city below the mountain, below the escarpment, than should be the case in any modern city. It is really quite tragic that, in the industrial areas in particular, there is simply no relief from the overburdening effect of the surrounding industries.

The health care costs have been proven in Hamilton to be related to the air pollution. The incidence of cancer and of various lung conditions clearly increases as we approach the industries located in the industrial part of our city. They are much higher than should otherwise be the case, in an ordinary urban environment. There are social costs, inasmuch as people wish to relocate, of course. They flee the industrial areas. Property values go down. There is a kind of residue effect, whereby social problems end up in the core of the city.

All these costs, apart from their terrible human consideration, are also economic costs and they are economic costs which are borne by the public sector. We know very well, both in the government and in the two opposition parties, that these health and social costs end up coming from the taxpayers. Whereas it is really the concentration of unmitigated heavy industry which is the original cause of these particular costs. Please understand, I am not opposing heavy industry. I would not wish to be misunderstood. What I am saying is, you need to mitigate the effects of it sometimes.

We need, in Hamilton, recreational facilities and I put it to you that the municipality there requires help and understanding from the Province of Ontario. After all, we have borne this burden of heavy industry which has benefited the whole province. I think it is time for the province to look at the municipalities of the Hamilton area and offer a bit of assistance, so that we can mitigate the effect.

I don’t think we have had a terribly good deal from the province -- and as I say I am not singling out the province; there are many other governments to blame as well -- we haven’t had a terribly good deal over 32 years. We have had very little in the way of improvement in our waterfront. Toronto, and I don’t begrudge Toronto this at all, has had some development on the waterfront which I think has been very good for the people. There is parkland. They have had the Science Centre up in the northern part of the city which is an excellent benefit for Toronto as well as for the province. Ontario Place is perhaps a more questionable benefit, but in the long run I suspect we will be happy with that. There is the Harbourfront park and so on. Yet, in Hamilton, we don’t even have access to our own waterfront. There is virtually nowhere where the people of Hamilton can have access to their own bay. There are no recreational facilities to make use of that marvelous resource. I think it is just not good enough.

[12:45]

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There is the Hamilton Yacht Club and Leander Boat Club accesses.

Mr. S. Smith: I draw to the attention of Hansard, lest they missed that particular interjection, that the one particular access the citizens of Hamilton have to the bay is the Hamilton Yacht Club. I hope that is recorded in Hansard.

Mr. Nixon: Well, these people from Burlington.

Mr. Reid: Ninety-nine per cent don’t have any access.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You said they didn’t have any recreational facilities.

Mr. S. Smith: The other interesting interjection by the Minister of the Environment is that all the citizens of Hamilton have to do is drive around the bay to Burlington and they can set foot in the water there the way he did.

Mr. Ruston: Wearing a fancy bathing suit.

Mr. S. Smith: Do members know why he suddenly discovered that his swim should take place in Burlington? This is a very interesting story which I know the members at least of my party, being interested and educated persons, would like to hear about. The Minister of the Environment had decided that he would like to jump in the bay, and we certainly can’t quarrel with his judgement in that regard.

Mr. Reid: I offered to lend him an anchor.

Mr. S Smith: He was undoubtedly responding to many of the wishes spoken and unspoken.

Mr. Deans: The Minister of the Environment should tell them about public access to the waters. Anybody can get in there.

Mr. S. Smith: That is right. He decided he would go off the pier my hon. friend from Hamilton-Wentworth is talking about, and that he would jump in. That was the agreement with the major. Unfortunately, it turned out that the count of dangerous bacteria and other contaminants in the water was some hundred thousand times what it should be for safe levels.

Mr. Nixon: The minister would have made it worse.

Mr. S. Smith: He then made a point of finding out where the least unsafe part of the bay was and he found it, lo and behold in Burlington and he suddenly remembered, “That is the riding I am representing. What a great chance to jump in the water there.” Of course, even there it was 10,000 times what it ought to be.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, that’s exorbitant.

Mr. S. Smith: That is a slight exaggeration. What was the figure?

Mr. Reid: Nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Approximately a quarter of that.

Mr. S. Smith: Only a quarter of 10,000? It was only 2,500. I stand corrected before the people of Ontario. It was only 2,500 times too dangerous for human beings to go in. But the minister went in; we can draw our own conclusions from that.

Mr. Nixon: What was it after he got out?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Zero.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact of the matter is we are being diverted here by a certain levity and I want the House to understand.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Stick to the facts. Tell the truth. If you want to be leader you have to tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West has the floor.

Mr. S. Smith: I stand corrected in front of this pillar of truth. I tell the House that the Minister of the Environment jumped into water which, by his own admission, was only 2,500 times too dangerous for human beings to use for recreational purposes.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No. You are not telling the truth again.

Mr. S. Smith: Please correct me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The question was whether or not it was too dangerous for recreational purposes; not the condition of the water. Human beings can put up with a lot depending on whether it is for drinking or swimming. It is two different things.

Mr. S. Smith: Please inform me how many times does one have the chance to have the Minister of the Environment tell us how many hundreds or thousands of times too dangerous for swimming was the water in which he decided to swim as a publicity gimmick? Please inform us.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I didn’t say it was too dangerous for swimming.

Mr. S. Smith: How many hundred times? Please. One hundred times?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Maybe 100 times for drinking.

Mr. S. Smith: Maybe 100 times. Merely 100 times. My heavens, it is amazing as we continue along the way.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It depends how much you swallow or if you have a festering wound.

Mr. S. Smith: We have swallowed enough up to now. We have swallowed it and we are fed up swallowing it. The people of Hamilton demand that they have some access to that recreational facility other than the Hamilton Yacht Club which the minister seems pleased about.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Speak to the city of Hamilton --

Mr. S. Smith: They want to have water they can swim in the way they used to be able to.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- or the federal government.

Mr. S. Smith: I want to mention as well another aspect of our natural environment there, and that is Cootes Paradise. Cootes Paradise may be something unfamiliar to a good many members here. It is a type of marshland in the corner of the bay where the water is very shallow and it was declared by the province years and years ago as a natural sanctuary for wildfowl and for various species of wildlife. It is a lovely natural setting and is extremely highly valued by the citizens of Hamilton.

This particular area is being polluted extremely rapidly by sewage from the neighbouring town of Dundas. This is well understood by the ministry and by the citizens in the area, and the citizens of Hamilton demand that that natural sanctuary be rescued and be saved. The only way that is going to happen, I tell you -- and we have had many scientific reports on the matter -- will be for adequate sewage treatment to take place before the sewage is dumped from Dundas into that marsh.

Adequate sewage treatment, in this instance, will have to be a tertiary process rather than the usual, albeit expensive, secondary process. Tertiary treatment of sewage is quite expensive but it has to be done. I am here to tell you that the citizens of Hamilton want you to understand that tertiary treatment of Dundas sewage has to occur to save that precious natural resource. And they rather suspect that if Cootes Paradise were located in some other part of the province, such as Toronto, it would now be a major national attraction rather than become a refuse dump and a cesspool.

I want to mention a few other items that were of concern to the electors in Hamilton West which they brought to my attention during the time it was my privilege to be running in the campaign there. I have already mentioned in this House the question of the regional government and the way it was imposed on the municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. I made the positive and constructive suggestion in this House that in view of the way in which the municipalities have taken very fixed, rigid positions against each other, particularly the city of Hamilton on the one hand and the neighbouring municipalities on the other -- I don’t blame either group for that, frankly. I think the way in which they were threatened with the imposition of a system they did not want, had not learned to understand and learned to want, and the way in which it was imposed is directly the cause of all this hard feeling today. Nonetheless, there is hard feeling. This particular hard feeling I have studied very carefully. I know something about human nature. I have worked 14 years in a certain profession, not for nothing. No, the fact of the matter is --

Mr. Deans: I am glad it wasn’t for nothing.

Mr. S. Smith: You are damned right it wasn’t.

Mr. Deans: In fact, how much was it for?

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll be glad to tell you, Ian. And if I could --

Mr. Nixon: And we have a special rate for you.

Mr. S. Smith: No, I wouldn’t. I only take on cases that have some possible hope.

Mr. Reid: Give them a group rate.

Mr. S. Smith: My friend from Hamilton-Wentworth is terribly keen to know what it is that I have been earning.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care how much you have been earning. I knew you didn’t work for nothing, that’s all.

Mr. S. Smith: The difference is that whet I have been getting, I have been earning. What he has been getting, it is very questionable how he has come by it.

Mr. Reid: This is a subjective analysis.

Mr. S. Smith: You are right, absolutely right. In any case, let’s get back to attacking. I am much more interesting in attacking, because I actually happen to like my friend from Hamilton-Wentworth, but --

Mr. Deans: Please, please don’t.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Now the fix is on you, Wentworth.

An hon. member: Somebody has got to like him.

Mr. Deans: My defeat is imminent.

Mr. S. Smith: You are right about that. You are right about that too.

The hon. Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) rose in this House to say that my suggestions about this had simply not been thought through. Well, I have thought my suggestions through. I am telling you the only way that we are going to actually save the taxpayers -- and let’s remember them once in a while -- the only way we are going to save the taxpayers’ money in Hamilton-Wentworth will be for someone to sit down with those who represent the municipality of Hamilton and those who represent the surrounding municipalities to try to, in some way, arbitrate some agreement by which at least the duplication can be removed.

I don’t think that’s terribly silly. I don’t think that is outrageous and I don’t think it is something which needs to be thought through much further. As far as I am concerned, that’s a very reasonable suggestion. But the Treasurer is so convinced, in his own self-satisfied and smug way, that he has somehow or other, by dint of great study and wisdom and by the help of several civil service people, come to the solution of all problems. He simply says: “Oh, that is just ridiculous. He obviously hasn’t thought about it. It can’t be done.”

Mr. Nixon: Regional government is his baby.

Mr. S. Smith: I am telling the members that that baby of regional government is going to keep being brought back and put in a basket on his doorstep. One of these times he is going to understand the consequences of taking this smug and self-satisfied attitude about everything, this slippery way in which he will simply stand up and tell us all to eat cake when we are trying to make reasonable suggestions to put bread on the tables in Hamilton and other parts of this province.

This is the same Treasurer who made a statement a few days ago saying that that huge volume, which tells us about all the government excesses and excessive government spending, is not an indictment of the past at all but rather simply a blueprint for the future. That takes colossal gall. Who, in heaven’s name, has been spending all that money for the last 32 years, and particularly for the last few years that he’s been there? Who has authored all those expenditures if not the Treasurer?

Mr. Nixon: Right.

Mr. S. Smith: But he doesn’t regard it as an indictment of the past; he regards it only as an indication for the future. That’s marvellous. He can call black white if he wishes, but we know what the truth is. He is going to have to deal with the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, he is going to have to deal with the tax bills that are going to rise there in an astronomical way and he is going to have to accept reasonable suggestions about eliminating duplication and waste.

Another issue of great interest to the people of Hamilton and, I would imagine, of similar interest in other urban industrialized centres and in places like Sudbury and so on, is the issue of industrial health. This has been touched on before, and I will not go into it in great length, but again, do we really have to wait for the newly appointed advisory council on industrial health to have a long series of discussions, to interview experts and to go through the whole mailer over and over again while people are still being affected, even at this very moment, by various hazards in their working atmosphere? I would hope that we don’t have to wait for that.

I would make the suggestion, as I did the ether day, that the working people of this province ought to have the right to know of any hazard to which they are being exposed, and anything that is going to be breathed in the atmosphere ought to have some sort of clearance, from a body such as the Food and Drug Directorate before people are permitted to work in such a hazardous environment; they should have the same kind of clearance you presently need for foods, medications, cosmetics and so on. Surely it is just as important, if not more important, for the working people to know what hazards they are being exposed to via their pulmonary system as it is for everybody to know what hazards they are being exposed to via the digestive system. What is magic about the digestive system?

To wait 25 years in order to find out which things cause cancers and which substances turn out to be dangerous is cruel and unnecessary in present times. We have enough scientific experience right now that it ought to be possible for us to set up monitoring stations within each industrial environment, to have a list of both the inventories and processes within each industry and simply to make it necessary to put the onus of proof on the industry that they are not subjecting the workers to an unnecessary hazard.

I look forward to the time that a report will be brought in about the advisory council but I hope we can act before then to bring in a bill of rights for working people in terms of their industrial health. I propose this; I hope the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) will hear about this a second time and will reconsider his intentions simply to wait for the advisory council.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps if the hon. member has further remarks to make, it might be appropriate at this time to move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. S. Smith: I would be very glad to so move, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I might indicate our programme for next week.

On Monday we will go back into committee of supply with the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources, to be followed by the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development; and, of course, from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. is private members’ hour. There will be no session Monday evening.

On Tuesday we will do legislation, second reading of Bill 27 and second reading of Bill 34, and then work in committee of the whole House with respect to legislation. If we finish our legislation work on Tuesday, and there is still time, we will do some Throne Speech debate.

The House will not sit on Wednesday, but the committees, of course, are organized.

[1:00]

Thursday we’ll go back into committee of supply and finish the time that has been allotted for estimates -- Resources Development and the Premier. If there is any legislation still carried over from Tuesday, we will complete it; and then the Throne Speech debate.

Friday will be the Throne Speech debate. The committees that are organized have a fairly extensive programme for next week and those notices will be posted as usual.

I would draw attention once again that the standing committee on estimates have made some arrangements among themselves to deal with the Workmen’s Compensation Board for that particular day; that is, Wednesday, Dec. 3.

Mr. Deans: Before the motion is put, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask, as is my custom on Friday, whether we might at some point in the near future see the resolution on the order paper dealing with the provincial government’s response to the federal guidelines and know early next week, as I had anticipated we might know early this week, when we might be prepared to debate that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might deal with that, as I thought we were going to last Monday, at the meeting of House leaders. It is the question of whether or not it takes the form of a resolution, or rather is to be a discussion prompted by the tabling of some documents -- this is the sort of thing we would talk about. There was always some understanding that we would find some vehicle to provide for some discussion of that particular programme. If that would be all tight we will talk about that on Monday.

Mr. Deans: One final question then. Is it possible for the government House leader to indicate by Monday exactly what documents it is that he intends to table? Quite obviously there would have to be some period of time between the tabling and the debate in order that we could have an opportunity to read the documents and prepare for the debate.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that explains the problem. As the Treasurer indicated in his report -- was it Thursday of this week? -- it is in respect to agreements, legislation and so forth, as far as the federal House was concerned, that is creating some problem. I’ll do what I can for the meeting on Monday.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.