Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the 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.

Mr. Laughren: It is with an unusual amount of pleasure that I rise to open the debate this evening. I know the polls are not complete -- and I’m never one to count my chickens before they’re hatched -- but I do think members of the chamber, who aren’t aware, should know the latest counts available, at least to me, in Scarborough West and in Wentworth.

Mr. Sargent: Is it necessary?

Mr. Laughren: In Scarborough West, the polls show the NDP candidate, Mr. Johnston, with 6,981 votes; the Conservative candidate, 5,165 votes, and the Liberal candidate, 4,361 votes.

In Wentworth, the polls show Mr. Isaacs has 5,137 votes; the Progressive Conservative candidate -- I cannot recall his name at the moment -- has 4,218 votes, and the Liberal candidate, 3,331 votes.

It is gratifying indeed to see that the people in those two ridings have spoken again and reaffirmed the wisdom of their earlier decisions in years gone by. I would just make a small comment. In the last four by-elections we’ve had in recent months, the government has won two and the New Democrats -- the real opposition in this Legislature -- have won the other two. We believe, as well, that there’s a reason the people in those ridings have spoken the way they have.

We believe they believe as we do; that this government lacks imagination; it is immobilized; and it’s time to give it a rest. We believe the people know the government is tired. The people themselves are tired of a government that persists in its regressive taxation policies; persists in a shoddy resource policy; persists in anti-labour legislation and policies; persists in neglect of regional development, particularly in the northern Ontario, southwestern Ontario, and Peterborough areas.

As well, the people in those two tidings understand that industrial giveaways, with no guarantees, are not acceptable in this province. They understand, as well, that the neglect of children with learning disabilities cannot be allowed to continue. They understand that the incredible mistreatment of injured workers has gone on far too long, and that the government continues to do nothing.

They understand, as well, that this government is not moving the way it should to protect our medicare system. They know, too, that the failure to rebuild our economy, particularly in the manufacturing sector, will lead to more problems in the future, but the government has continued to do nothing.

The people are angry and upset about the government’s casual indifference to the almost 300,000 unemployed people in the province at this time; as well as the failure of this government to make any move whatsoever to repatriate our economy so that we can put those people back to work. Also, the government is failing to protect consumers from rising prices, particularly in the supermarkets.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in recent months there has been some comment about how difficult it’s been for this party to move from a leader with the stature of Stephen Lewis to a new leader. We would be foolish indeed not to recognize that to move from a leader of Stephen’s stature to any new leader would cause tremors in any political party.

The picture is clear that this party, under Michael Cassidy, has addressed itself to the major problems of Ontario. Our leader himself has talked about the issues of the day, whether they are food prices, unemployment, our medicare system, labour issues, the environment, public transit or social services. He is carrying on the tradition of great leadership in this party, Mr. Speaker, and I would say to you that we are a healthy, aggressive and clear alternative to this government and its alter ego, the Ontario Liberals.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch briefly on some portions of the speech from the throne.

In total, I thought the throne speech was a good one, and certainly very positive as far as national unity is concerned.

I will quote just one paragraph from the throne speech, where the Honourable Pauline McGibbon, Lieutenant Governor for the province of Ontario, points out:

“Some may wish to argue as to whether the primary emphasis of this session should be directed to improving the economic climate of Ontario or to improving the social services available to our people. In truth, extensive attention must be given to both, for it is clear that only if the economic circumstances in our province remain strong will we be able to maintain and develop the programs that contribute to a fair and balanced society.”

I think that quotation makes it very clear that our economic climate and our social service programs go hand in hand. There is no use in telling about plans to improve our social programs until we can show how we can improve the economic climate in Ontario. We must do that in order to provide the social benefits that obviously are needed.

Other important matters dealt with in the throne speech are as follows: (1) an immediate province-wide campaign urging consumers to buy Ontario-grown fruits and vegetables to help curb rising food costs; (2) beefed-up assistance to the Ontario tourist industry, including a scheme to train 25,000 hospitality workers; (3) the extension of special transit accommodation and self-help programs for the physically handicapped; (4) continued free drugs for senior citizens; (5) extended home care for the chronically ill; (6) a renewed commitment to the Children’s Law Reform Act, to move to consolidate provincial children’s aid services and to recognize the best interests of the child in custody in access cases; (7) intensive programs promoting immunization of children; (8) extension of poison control services at children’s hospitals and increased funding for programs to control child abuse; (9) extended television services to northern communities to help overcome the sense of isolation that some people feel there.

I would like to make some comments about the health-care plan of this province.

The throne speech made it abundantly clear that there would be no cut in quantity or quality of health-care services. It has also been abundantly clear for a number of years that the NDP would have the doctors working on a salary or fixed income.

Mr. Young: Who said so?

Mr Lane: You said so, many times.

Mr. Wildman: When?

Mr. Young: Give us proof.

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) tried that yesterday at the Ontario Medical Association, and they booed him.

Mr. Lane: I listened to the NDP critic yesterday speak for an hour about what terrible people the doctors are.

Mr. Wildman: He never said anything about salaries.

Mr. Lane: The NDP are spending much time these days speaking in this House and in the federal election campaign about the downgrading of the health-care system. It is my conviction that putting doctors on a salary or a fixed income would be just exactly what we need to downgrade the health-care system in this province.

I personally feel that if a doctor chooses to opt out of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, that should be his privilege. Forcing him to remain in the scheme would again, I feel, downgrade the quality of health care we now enjoy.

However, I think it is only fair, if a doctor does opt out, that he is required to advise his patients and would-be patients that he is no longer in the plan and to advise them what additional costs they could be expected to pay for which they would not be reimbursed.

While I agree that we need a new formula in northern Ontario, and some more doctors, one gets a little tired of hearing members from the third party continually condemn our doctors for the lack of interest in their patients and try to portray them as a group of money grabbers.

Mr. Wildman: Do you support the cuts in beds in the north?

Mr. Lane: This is very unfair. For the most part, the doctors in this province are a very dedicated group of people. I also think most doctors feel the OHIP program is an excellent one. While some doctors are opting out, I have yet to find one doctor in the position of not having himself and his family covered under the program.

Mr. Wildman: That’s a double standard.

Mr. Martel: That’s definitely a double standard; cover yourself, boys.

Mr. Lane: I would think that this indicates Ontario’s health-care scheme is one of the best in the world and is so recognized by our doctors.

Mr. Martel: Cover yourself, but not the peasants.

Mr. Lane: Going back nearly eight years ago when I was involved in my first provincial election campaign, my number one plank was to try to do something about the transportation services in the north, and in my riding particularly. Much has happened since then. There has been a great improvement in transportation, not only in my riding, Mr. Speaker, but also in yours and in all other northern ridings.

Mr. Wildman: A lot of the hospitals didn’t get enough money.

Mr. Lane: I had the unique experience on Monday morning of this week of holding a press conference in Sudbury on behalf of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) to talk about the budget he is prepared to put into transportation in the north this year. It amounts to approximately $52,000,000. I won’t go into details of the expenditures.

Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Northern Affairs couldn’t make it.

Mr. Martel: Watch that he doesn’t talk you out of that airport because that is what he wanted to do at one time, I recall. He wanted to sell norOntario; do you recall that?

Mr. Lane: I don’t recall it.

Mr. Martel: Yes, he did.

Mr. Lane: I recall very well when I first came into this House all members opposite saying what a white elephant we had in norOntair.

Mr. Martel: You wanted to give it away to the private sector.

Mr. Lane: No.

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Mr. Lane: The member is getting more mixed up all the time.

Mr. Martel: You had better look back on the speeches of your colleague.

Mr. Lane: I won’t go into detail about the expenditures, any more than to say many of the transportation problems I had seen back in 1971 have been looked after in the past eight years by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Martel: They were going to sink the island with pavement.

Mr. Lane: I would just like to take this opportunity to say how much I enjoyed working with the minister for nearly two years as his parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Wildman: You should have been the minister.

Mr. Lane: Now that I am parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Affairs, I find it very commendable that we are now spending $52,000,000 this year to try to continue to improve the transportation system in the north.

Mr. Martel: We stopped you from selling it.

Mr. Lane: One of the things I am trying to convince my minister to do, which I think would be of tremendous advantage to the senior citizens of northern Ontario, is to co-ordinate the efforts of the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services in the sparsely populated areas in northern Ontario where it would be impossible to support either nursing homes or rest homes for the elderly on an individual basis. By grouping the rent-geared-to-income units from Housing with the rest homes from Community and Social Services, together with nursing home beds from the Ministry of Health, we could have this type of umbrella complex in many areas throughout the north in which it would otherwise be impossible to keep our elderly people in the area where they have made their life contribution and in many cases where their families now reside.

I think it tragic that many times people who are no longer able to take care of themselves are forced into homes for the elderly or nursing homes many miles away from their family and friends. In many cases the lives of these great people to whom we owe so much is shortened by the fact they must be parted from their families and friends at a time when they need them most. If our ministry could co-ordinate the services of the three above-mentioned ministries without additional cost to the taxpayers of this province, we could bring great peace of mind to thousands of people who are now very concerned about where they will be when the time comes when they can no longer take care of themselves.

We sometimes take for granted that Ontario just by accident is a great place to live. We have to look a little deeper and realize that without the people who are now in their sunset years, having made the great contribution they have to this province, we would probably not be enjoying the many things we now take for granted. As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, I want to say I want to do my part to make sure no stone is left unturned in providing the best possible facilities for these people in their sunset years.

I won’t take any more time of the House. I am sure a lot of members want to speak.

[8:15]

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, along about now, the member speaking usually has a few kind words to say about the Speaker.

Mr. Lane: Terribly difficult, Ed.

Mr. Sargent: I can say it’s a tough job, and I’ll leave it at that. But I guess you’ll have to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Worton: You both speak well of one another and that’s why --

Mr. Sargent: -- and I guess we have to give you some credit, that you’re quite a showman. The daily Speaker’s parade is something else. When the officer at the top of the stairs barks and bellows: “Make way for the Speaker,” you have to believe in the awesome power of the Speaker’s chair.

Mr. Hennessy: Oh yeah? He’d need an umpire to throw you out.

Mr. Sargent: But that shaggy group preceding the Speaker, following the man in the three-cornered hat --

Mr. Hennessy: Napoleon, Napoleon.

Mr. Sargent: -- it reminds me of kids playing in the backyard.

Mr. Hennessy: He reminds you of Napoleon.

Mr. Sargent: It should really be a film for the Gong Show. You could arrange to have a couple of bunnies going ahead strewing flowers over your path, and give it some class. But the participants don’t look too enthused. I suggest maybe you might get a sergeant-major in and give them I some drill in marching.

Mr. Hennessy: That’s right, keep it up. You’re on your way, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: But anyway, speaking of sergeant-majors, a few weeks back I was at a warden’s banquet and we were going to be piped in to the head table by the pipe major. One of the ladies in the head table party said to the pipe major, resplendent in his tartans and his kilt: “Pipe major, is there anything worn under the kilts?” He said: “No ma’am, everything’s in fine working order.”

I think after 16 years in this hallowed place that things are not in very good working order, according to my way of looking at it. You get to be pretty objective after 16 years here and you think of the concerns --

Ms. Gigantes: You mean objectionable.

Mr. Sargent: -- I have for my area. We have no rail service, we have no air service, we have --

Mr. Hennessy: No member.

Mr. Sargent: -- a 48-mile-an-hour traffic rule. The fact is today I have lost my licence to drive -- 15 points are gone. My chauffeur Bob McKessock has 11 points gone. I say how in the hell --

Ms. Gigantes: Better to stay home.

Mr. Sargent: -- do you make time driving 120 miles an hour -- I mean 120 miles?

An hon. member: No wonder you lost your points quickly, Eddie.

Ms. Gigantes: Take it easy, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: I’ve got 128 miles to go and I have to go at 48 miles an hour. It’s a long trip.

An hon. member: Bad road too.

Mr. Sargent: So we have our problems living in the north. Especially after -- what is it, 35 years, Bob?

Mr. Nixon: Thirty-six years.

Mr. Sargent: Thirty-six years of oppressive, corrupt rule.

Mr. Speaker: I think really the member should not use language like that.

Mr. Sargent: But I have facts to back it up, Mr. Speaker, if you want to --

Mr. Speaker: I think the honourable member should choose his words a little bit more --

Mr. Sargent: Well, I may use it many times tonight, I’m sorry, but I really feel it.

Mr. Hodgson: Settle down or else you will get thrown out again.

Mr. Sargent: The trouble with a freewheeling speech like this is when we criticize the government they accuse us of being paranoid and untruthful. I can never understand why we should tell lies about them when the truth is bad enough. The members have to admit that we don’t have the best of all governments in the world.

Mr. Hennessy: The occasional member.

Mr. Sargent: This province is the richest and has the greatest resources in North America. In every respect we are the best, but we are in the most serious financial position since Confederation. At this point in time with our technology we can almost do anything -- put a man on the moon -- but tonight, on the news, we heard that every hospital in Toronto has 16 to 20 patients lying on cots in the emergency sections.

We can commit ourselves to $30,000,000,000 in nuclear power, shooting craps with destiny, yet be so negligent of the needs of our people. I am talking about cutbacks and hospital closings. We collect the charges for hospital care from our people but we don’t deliver the service.

Mr. Hennessy: You don’t believe that.

Mr. Sargent: The government tries to take our hospitals away from us in the north, playing politics with people’s lives.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: You really don’t believe that.

Mr. Sargent: After 32 years in control here, the government has plundered the treasury to the extent that now it is $14,000,000,000 in debt. I guess by this time next week it will be $ 15,000,000,000 in debt, by next Tuesday.

Mr. Haggerty: That is a good estimate.

Mr. Sargent: According to accounting principles -- it is treading so dangerously close to a default position --

Mr. Hodgson: One more drink, Ed, one more drink.

Mr. Hennessy: One more for the road.

Mr. Sargent: It is so bad that it has raided every pension plan scheme -- the teachers, the civil service, the Canadian Pension -- to the extent of $7,000,000,000 and not five cents is left in these plans.

A lot has happened since we had the last budget debate. Mr. McKeough took us from a $36,000,000 credit position, a surplus, to a $2,000,000,000 deficit. In three years he had three successive budgets of $1,000,000,000 or more a year, but he kept telling the people of Ontario that he would balance the budget by 1980. He said it repeatedly, and every time he would say this the trained seals over there would thump their desks as though they really believed it.

Mr. Haggerty: It is a good speech, Eddie.

Mr. Nixon: Here is the minister, he has been out to lunch.

Mr. Sargent: I think it must be embarrassing to know what they have done to this province. Mr. McKeough was part of the architecture; he and John White and the Premier (Mr. Davis) brought us to this position. However, he saw disaster on the horizon and resigned to save face. But he said he was going to keep his views on politics before the people. He might start today to tell the people of Ontario how he arranged to cancel a $600,000 debt owed by the estate of the president of Chrysler in the Ronto deal because he had promised it to this lady at a party.

Last week we had three episodes on television of the organization and corruptness in the rackets. Let me tell the House that the past 10 or 15 years around this place would make a great TV documentary. It would make Watergate seem like peanuts. Let me set the scenario in this.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You will be right on the front bench.

Mr. Sargent: If the minister had any brains he would be embarrassed with this.

Here is this picture with smiling Bill Davis as the godfather.

Do you recall the Fidinam affair; when I got bounced out of the House because I produced a $50,000 cancelled cheque payable to Mr. Kelly from the president of Fidinam, a payoff to get a $20,000,000 contract for the building of the Workmen’s Compensation Board project? And that from a company that could not even pay a $1,500 bill? They got the no-bid contract.

Do you recall the Moog and Davis affair across the road? It was a $41,000,000 project, a no-bid contract to a friend of the Premier. A year before they got the $25,000,000 OISE contract. It was a no-bid contract, a friend of the Premier’s got that. We could go on and on in documenting, with ministers resigning like flies. The minister opposite is one guy who survived, because of inside deals in real estate.

This is part of the scenario of the Davis government, with Eddy Goodman, a director of Cadillac and also the bagman for this party. Cadillac Fairview was just an ordinary company then. They were building housing for OHC, but Eddie Goodman had arrangements to get funds for them quickly. Today Cadillac Fairview is one of the largest corporations in North America, across the border. They got their start here in Queen’s Park. That’s a great setting for a movie or for a television series.

The members know all about the Saltfleet scandals and land deals in Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Saltfleet?

Mr. Sargent: Land was appraised at $3,000,000 and was selling for $6,000,000 -- a $3,000,000 payoff. The director of housing resigned because he would not stand for that kind of hanky-panky. He is now a director of Central Mortgage and Housing in Ottawa and will back this up. The reason he resigned was he could not stand the corruption here.

Mr. Nixon: Tell us about Bronte Park.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No corruption there, Eddie.

Mr. Hennessy: No prompting, please.

Mr. Sargent: Many of the cabinet ministers involved in land deals have resigned. We do not have in this province, in this area of Toronto, an investigative press that will go out and do a Watergate like the Washington Post did in Washington. We have lots of material here. After 15 or 16 years in this business I wonder what is wrong with our people, because an informed public is a strong public. We are not informed about the inside deals going on. If a man gets up to bring a good question to this House he has to get the terminology right. He gets kicked out of the House if the phrasing is not proper.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You are not telling the truth, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: Then we come to the deal, a $30,000,000,000 nuclear project, making millionaires of friends of the government. That is the basis of The China Syndrome, greed, in this nuclear power program. We made a lot of millionaires in this deal and they are all friends of the government. Look around on the opening day of the House. It is the people who are doing business with the government paying tribute to the establishment. That is what fills up the front part of the deal here.

Mr. Nixon: There they go now.

Mr. Sargent: Now we go down the line.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Eddie, you will have to go to confession.

Mr. Hennessy: You will have to write a book.

Mr. Peterson: Too had you cannot read, Mickey.

Mr. Sargent: -- we have the payoff again. We have a $7,000,000,000 contract, --

Mr. Peterson: How much is Mickey taking? That is what I want to know.

Mr. Sargent: -- to go to the year 2010, with Denison Mines, which will give Mr. Roman and his friends a $2,000,000,000 guaranteed profit before they even start. They do not put any money into the deal. The government will loan them $339,000,000 as front-end financing to get the project on stream. They have no risk whatsoever, and they get a $2,000,000,000 profit on the sale of uranium at $40 to $60 a pound. The Wall Street Journal says that material is worth one dollar at the minehead. These are facts.

Hon. Mr. Snow: And you believe them.

Mr. Sargent: The minister asks if I believe it. Well, I will tell him something in Latin. If he went to school, he will know what this means. I got to fifth form Latin. Populus iamdudum defutatus est. It means, in translation, the consumer has been screwed long enough.

Mr. Nixon: Must have been quite a teacher you had.

Mr. Van Horne: Relatively plain and simple.

Mr. Mancini: I think Mickey understands.

[8:30]

Mr. Sargent: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this Ontario government contract -- it is not a Hydro contract; it is an Ontario government contract with Denison Mines and Preston Mines -- is a disgraceful government contract. I call on the Premier to show cause why this should not be cancelled in view of recent developments. We are locked into this deal for 30 years, to pay between $40 and $60 a pound for uranium, when massive recent discoveries in Saskatchewan, Australia and Africa reveal that, according to the Wall Street Journal, it can be produced for $1 a pound. That is quite a spread.

The contract calls for delivery within about 10 months, by early 1980. Mr. Roman and his friends got a $339,000,000 advance, but they have only drawn down $75,000,000 of that money; so they I have nine months to get in action to start deliveries.

As the Toronto Star says in its editorial, any other company with a government contract for $7,000,000,000 would have gone to the banks and got its own financing. But what does the Premier do? He hurries this deal through the committee, gives them a deadline date to have the deal finalized and sold, and gives them $339,000,000 up front. That $339,000,000, according to the Toronto Star, is going to cost the taxpayers of Ontario $1,000,000,000 in interest for the loan alone, on top of the $7,000,000,000 -- committing our kids to the year 2010 -- with a built-in, guaranteed profit of $2,000,000,000 at absolutely no risk.

The Hydro committee was advised by Burns, Fry Limited, a Toronto firm, that by 1980 -- in eight months -- uranium production could exceed demand by 82 per cent. The committee knew about this, the Premier knew about this; but he hurried it along. I am calling on the Premier to renegotiate this contract because of the misleading advice thnt was given to the committee that the world scarcity of uranium would justify these scandalous prices.

There is nothing new about calling for a rollback. Westinghouse in the United States were involved in the same type of deal; they went back and renegotiated the contracts. It is time we got some action in this regard in Ontario.

Not a single insurance company in the world will guarantee anyone in the world -- in Ontario or elsewhere -- one cent against nuclear power radiation with all its defects. But, here we are, going down the line with a $30,000,000,000 program. In Douglas Point, we have swimming pools full of spent uranium rods -- thousands of them, deadly that. dangerous. They are stored in swimming poois, temporarily, until they can find a burial ground. These rods have to last 2,000 years, hut we are storing them in swimming pools until we can find somebody who will let us bury them some place. That is what is going on in our riding.

The Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) assured the House there is no problem with our nuclear program. A release I got on my desk today from Mr. Taylor says: “If a similar series of malfunctions did occur at a Hydro nuclear station, the public would be protected by our ‘defence in-depth’ safeguard.” Mr. Taylor says there is absolutely no cause for concern about the safe operation of Ontario nuclear plants. Well today I asked the Premier, as all members heard, about his concern over secret documents telling AECL about a series of malfunctions at Douglas Point and Bruce 1 and 2. I had no response from him that we could measure. Secret Hydro documents, known to many top Hydro officials, reveal that a series of potentially-catastrophic disasters could have occurred at the Douglas and Bruce plants, but they have been kept under cover as classified secrets.

Following are the highlights of some of the shocking revelations of human error and excessive mechanical failure: the containment structure at Douglas Point nuclear station could not withstand the pressures encountered at Harrisburg at Three Mile Island. The Three Mile Island plant was built to withstand 80 pounds of pressure; the Douglas Point plant is not built to withstand the same pressure as Three Mile Island. Douglas Point has been restricted to 70 per cent power, mainly because of inadequacies.

The important part is this. The Babcock and Wilcox boilers used in the Three Mile Island plant, and which are being investigated in plants across America as being possibly faulty, are used all across Ontario in Hydro plants.

The following is a series of happenings at the Bruce NGS. If they had all happened at once, it would have been catastrophic. It goes on to list many pnints here, three pages of happenings, which I will be developing at a later time. Because of these secret documents, called Internal Significant Event Reports and dealing with malfunctions and accidents at Hydro’s nuclear stations, I think it’s high time we did a total housekeeping job. Reports of all these secret documents should be coming to the leaders of the opposition parties and to all government agencies in Ontario and Canada.

Today, we had the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) talking about the small entrepreneur. In Canada 63 per cent of all taxation revenues come from the small entrepreneur, the small businessman. We have here pictures of Ontario’s men abroad. The Ministry of Industry and Tourism has offices in Frankfurt, in Brussels, in Vienna, Los Angeles, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, London, Tokyo, New York, Stockholm, wherever around the world.

Mr. Peterson: What about Marvin Shore?

Mr. Sargent: Yes, Marvin Shore and the group in London. The ministry spends millions of dollars on this type of operation. But in my city, when a small businessman goes to a ministry office for a loan, the answer is: “We don’t have any money for you. We can’t loan you any money; but we can give you advice.”

Here are a bunch of guys all across this province in these small offices; guys who couldn’t make a go of it in business. They’re broke themselves, but they get jobs with the ministry advising other men how to run their businesses. But they have no money for them. This is the ridiculous part; the stupidity of the whole arrangement. The ministry has men all around the world. It’s spending millions but it can’t lend a small entrepreneur in Owen Sound, Burlington or the Sault -- any place -- any money because it hasn’t any money for them. But it can give them advice. That’s like the blind leading the blind.

Mr. Van Horne: Send an expert in bankruptcy to Istanbul.

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mr. Mancini: That’s true and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Wiseman) knows it.

Mr. Sargent: We don’t have all the answers. I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we had the answers --

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: We don’t have the connections the government has with the establishment, that’s it. We don’t have that.

Mr. Peterson: Now Mickey Hennessy is establishment in my opinion; that shows how low I’ve sunk.

Mr. Sargent: Three years down the line since the establishment of the Niagara Escarpment Commission the president of our local Niagara Escarpment ratepayers association wrote to the Premier on March 3 or 4 and asked him about the new boundaries regarding the escarpment commission.

On March 6 he got a letter back from Premier Davis saying: “Dear Mr. Davenport: I am not aware of any official announcement bcing made recently regarding this boundary, other than the statement made on May 9, 1978, by the Honourable Rene Brunelle.”

This comes after the greatest announcement in history, that they’ve made an 80 per cent cutback in Niagara Escarpment boundaries. But that shows how much the Premier knows about the Niagara Escarpment.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Are you for it or against it, Eddie?

Mr. Sargent: The minister is sitting there being so smart. Let him tell me what he would do in this case. Doesn’t he believe that a farmer should own his own development rights, that he should not be denied the right to split his property if he has a chance to sell it or develop it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Right.

Mr. Sargent: Those fellows down here, the minister and his friends, are making millions by redevelopment in southern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are?

Mr. Sargent: He and his fellow ministers. One of the ministers made $1,000,000 on a land deal out here. The week before the escarpment boundaries became law they held the date hack until he sold his property. He got his money and they dated the transcript after he sold his property -- Mr. Yaremko. Doesn’t the minister know about that one?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No.

Mr. Sargent: Well he should know about it. He does know about it.

An hon. member: It was in his backyard.

Mr. Van Horne: Another log on the fire.

Hon. Mr. Snow: How much do you have, Eddie? How many millions did you make, Eddie? You don’t want to tell about those.

Mr. Sargent: It isn’t a case of how much I made, it’s how much I owe. That’s what I’m worried about.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This isn’t question period.

Mr. Sargent: A basic tenet of democracy is that the title of one’s land is sacred, and no one should tell you what you can do with it.

If you and your family have been paying taxes for generations on a piece of land, what right has some egghead friend of the Minister of Transportation and Communications or some political hack from Queen’s Park to tell you what you can do with it?

Mr. Cooke: I thought you guys wanted to save land.

Mr. Sargent: I say to the minister representing the Treasury, as he does with all his great whack, if his government wants to control land development in my area, or whatever --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Tell me more.

Mr. Sargent: -- let them put their money where their mouth is, and don’t forget that; that’s our position.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You own Brant, Norfolk, Oxford and Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: The fact is that thousands of our farmers have had their land frozen and can’t get severances. Yet they have to keep on paying taxes.

Mr. Peterson: It’s theft.

Mr. Sargent: Business in Bruce is in limbo because of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I say title to one’s land in Grey-Bruce doesn’t mean a damned thing. You’re even told what colour you can paint your outhouse, if they’ll let you.

An hon. member: Paint her blue.

Mr. Hennessy: Blue and yellow.

Mr. Sargent: Land use power under the provincial escarpment act overriding local zoning authority with some sort of wider ranging master planning has everyone scared. The outcome will be disaster, disrupting the local tax base.

Zoning has always been a local responsibility -- what is good for the local economy. Now the province is taking over control; it is taking over local planning functions. I can warn the government that we are going to block this. If I had my way and the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) had his way we would abolish the Niagara Escarpment Commission. We would abolish the whole thing. With the restraint program the government has on now it’s simply ridiculous to take our land rights away from us and spend $1,000,000 or so in salaries for a bunch of political hacks.

[8:45]

We have, in the Grey-Bruce area, what everybody wants. We have our own acres of diamonds. We should be capitalizing on our assets. We would have a big boom if you would leave us alone and let us I operate our programs for resorts and boat areas. You’re going to be hearing a lot more from us about the Niagara Escarpment.

In closing -- I’ve got the wheels down a bit now, coming in here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Flaps down.

Mr. Sargent: You’re the one who is doing the flapping.

The intrusive power of government in our lives doesn’t give us much hope. I think we’re giving government more power than is absolutely necessary. I think freedom is something which we have to guard against the intrusive power of government.

I’ll give you a brief example of how big government works; government power coming into our lives.

You recall, a few years ago, a drug raid in Fort Erie? There were 150 people in a night club. The Mounties got word there we’re going to be drugs there, So, arrogant with the dragnet search power they had, they stripped naked all the 150 men and women. They did vaginal and rectal searches for drugs. It was a shocking, abusive use of power. It happened in our province. One hundred and fifty people were taken in, stripped naked and subjected to vaginal and rectal searches, The Mounties used more power than was needed. Can you imagine the parallel, if the Mounties got a tip that there would be drugs at an Argo game and they used the same procedures, the same powers there. You would have the biggest half-time show in history.

Mr. Peterson: All Tories.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It would be quite a game.

Mr. Worton: It would look like a Tory annual conference, wouldn’t it, Jim?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It would be just like the Bruce County Liberal Association.

Mr. Sargent: The Mounted Police in this province have broken every rule in the hook, committed every crime.

Hon. Mr. Snow: All under the Liberals.

Mr. Sargent: There is arson, break and entry, opening of mail -- but not a single charge has been laid.

Hon. Mr. Snow: With the approval of the Liberals.

Mr. Sargent: I’m conscious of that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Are you on their side or on my side?

Mr. Sargent: Where were you before tonight, Jim? Did you come straight from home? Where did you come from? Have a bit more water; you need it.

We have great concerns in the area of the tax base in this province. We have our budget coming up next week and I feel you’re going to see about a billion and a half dollar budget.

It’s time that the people of Ontario had some decent government in this province.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to be very brief this evening because I want to get out to Scarborough West to celebrate with our colleagues and the press.

I’m glad to see the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) is here tonight. He holds the seat right near Scarborough West and I understand that he worked very hard with Richard Johnston and brought that riding in on his coat-tails.

Mr. Wildman: He is soon going to have a couple of people sitting beside him.

Mr. Cooke: I think the two by-elections the New Democratic Party won this evening are especially significant because, since the beginning of this session, the New Democratic Party has stressed the issue of health in this province. I have a feeling that the issue of universal medicare and adequate services in hospitals had a very significant impact in the two by-elections. I think that’s one of the reasons we did so very well this evening. In the New Democratic Party we believe the health system in this province is threatened by the federal Liberal government and by the provincial Tory government. The New Democratic Party fought for universal medicare and it is the New Democratic Party that will fight to maintain universal medicare in this province and in this country.

I want to spend some time talking about some of the health-care problems in the city of Windsor because they adequately demonstrate the problems all across Ontario. When the minister took part in the emergency debate in the Legislature regarding the deterioration of our health care system, he spoke very proudly of the Windsor agreement which took place very recently among four hospitals in the city of Windsor and Essex county. He said that was a very significant agreement and that health care in Windsor and Essex county was now planned adequately and that the overlap of services and some of the problems that have existed in Windsor for a number of years would be solved.

I should point out one of the major hospitals in the city of Windsor -- Metropolitan -- did not take part and did not sign that agreement. That is a very significant thing. Also, the basic decisions of that agreement, namely, the number of active-treatment beds of four per 1,000 as of April 1 of this year and 3.5 as of April 1, 1979, were not made by local people and were not made by the local district health council. That decision was made by the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell).

It is the same old story. Decisions are made in Queen’s Park, while the local people have the local information and know the local needs are not a part of that decision-making process. That is why the overall implementation of this four per 1,000 and 3.5 per 1,000 is going to be a failure. The people who know the needs of local communities are the local people.

If the Minister of Health really wanted to implement a plan that would work in Windsor, he would have said to the Windsor and Essex District Health Council: “Talk to the people of Windsor and Essex and find out what the needs are of those people. We are not going to tell you that it should be four per 1,000 or 3.5 per 1,000 active-treatment beds. We are going to let you make that decision and let you make that recommendation because you know your community best.”

But, no, that is not what has happened. Some bureaucrat here in Toronto has said four this year and 3.5 in 1981 is what Windsor will have and for all the cities and municipalities in southern Ontario and in northern Ontario it will eventually be four per 1,000. That is not the way decisions should be made regarding the priorities of health to the people of Ontario.

Last Sunday 109 beds were to be closed in the city of Windsor to meet the four per 1,000. We closed those beds and we don’t have the alternatives in Windsor. Where are the people to go who are at present in active-treatment beds? With respect to nursing homes in Windsor, we have a one-year waiting list to get a nursing-home bed. When they do get into a nursing home, we have a Nursing Homes Act and nursing-home inspections which are deficient in many areas.

I introduced a private member’s bill in May 1977 that indicated the feeling in the New Democratic Party was that nursing homes should be non-profit, charitable corporations. I took a survey in my riding that indicated the vast majority of the people of Windsor agreed with that. I am sure there will be a time in the future when we will again introduce that. When the time comes that we don’t just have an election involving two by-elections but a provincial election, one of these days the New Democratic Party will form a government and will set up a nursing-home system in this province where the first priority will be service, not profit.

Mr. Warner: The people will be heard.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You will be an old age pensioner. You will be in one of those homes.

Mr. Cooke: Rest homes are the other alternative in the city of Windsor for people at present in hospitals. Take a look at the rest homes in the city of Windsor and rest homes in this entire province. They are unregulated. The bylaws have to be passed by the local municipalities. There is no requirement for local municipalities to pass bylaws. They do it if they want to do it and then the inspections that take place are deficient in many areas.

I visited the rest homes in the city of Windsor on many occasions. Some of them are excellent. Some of them are very nice. If one looks at the per diem, the cost per day for the residents, they are very nice also.

The people who have to go in rest homes, and who have to rely on the welfare department or the social service department to pay for their per diem, they go in the second-rate rest homes. Those people who have large savings and can afford the per diem of $50, sometimes more, per day, can go in the very expensive and extravagant rest homes and their needs are well taken care of, but the ordinary people who have their old age pension and their Gains cannot afford to go into the good rest homes in the city of Windsor or any other place across this province.

Chronic home care is another area that was very much lacking in the Minister of Health’s agreement among the hospitals in Windsor. Chronic home care will not be implemented in the city of Windsor until this fall, and it will not be implemented unless savings have been realized by the agreement that was made among the hospitals.

So what have we done? We’ve eliminated 109 active-treatment beds; we’re going to convert some into chronic-care beds, but we would like some people who could benefit from chronic home care and could make it on their own, to move out of the hospitals and we do not have chronic home care in the city of Windsor, we do not have adequate good rest-home beds and we do not have enough nursing-home beds.

So in my opinion, and in the opinion of the people of Windsor, what has happened is that the Minister of Health has put the cart before the horse. What he should have done is put the alternatives in place and then decided to close some active-treatment beds and transfer people into the appropriate settings. But no, the Minister of Health has instead decided to close the active-treatment beds without the appropriate alternatives being in place.

Recently in the city of Windsor the district health council decided to make a study of who was in each bed on a particular day -- in all rest homes, nursing homes and hospital beds -- to find out whether or not people were placed in these beds inappropriately. The results of that survey are not in, and yet again the Minister of Health has implemented very significant changes in the health-care system in the city of Windsor without really understanding and really knowing what those changes are going to be.

We don’t know whether or not there are people inappropriately placed in nursing-home beds in the city of Windsor; we don’t know that, because the results of the study are not yet in. We don’t know whether there are people inappropriately placed in active-treatment beds in the city of Windsor, because the survey results are not in yet. We don’t know whether there are people who are in chronic-care beds who need chronic-care beds, again because the survey results are just being fed into the computer and even the members of the Windsor and District Health Council do not know what that particular study will show.

I don’t think the Minister of Health should have implemented the changes he has implemented without fully understanding and fully realizing what the present situation is in the city of Windsor and Essex county.

You can’t close active-treatment beds, Mr. Speaker, unless you have the alternatives, as I have said; and you can’t close active-treatment beds unless you know whether or not those 109 active-treatment beds that are at present being closed are needed in Windsor.

Recently I raised a problem within the Legislature about people who were being placed in emergency rooms and in hallways because there were not enough active-treatment beds, and that was before April 1 when 109 beds were to be closed. I had my legislative assistant call around to the various hospitals yesterday to find out what the effect has been since the beds have been closed. Members must realize that the beds were just closed on April 1, on Sunday.

At Hotel Dieu they tell me they haven’t closed their beds yet, they’re going to have to accept the financial penalty because they just don’t think they can impose the closure of 35 beds that were supposed to be closed on the people of Windsor. They are going to attempt to cut back in other places to try to make up the savings, because as you know, Mr. Speaker, the ministry has decided to impose I believe a $12,000 or $15,000 per year penalty on beds over the four per 1,000 ratio that the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health have set.

So Hotel Dieu has found it impossible to implement this move, because they were one of the hospitals that on an average of three nights per week before the bed closures were having to use the emergency rooms and the hallways for people who normally would have been admitted but couldn’t be because of the lack of beds.

Grace Hospital has closed its beds, but again they’re having to use their emergency room, because of lack of beds, to admit people.

[9:00]

At Western they have had to cut back on all elective surgery. The waiting period for elective surgery is now extremely long in the city of Windsor. I can’t impress enough on the members of the Legislature the stress that puts on an individual. They get ready to go into the hospital, the surgery is needed and they don’t know when they can be admitted. They get themselves psyched up, they realize the surgery is necessary, but they can’t have it done until a bed becomes available. At times their date is scheduled to be admitted, they get all ready to go in and then they find out that there is no bed available because of an emergency the night before and their surgery is cancelled.

At Metropolitan, I gather from the people I have talked to, the situation is most crucial. That is where the case that I raised in the Legislature took place, where a 78-year-old man, a Mr. Turski, went into emergency suffering from headache, shortness of breath, dizziness. They did an examination of him and the admitting doctor at emergency said that under normal circumstances he would have admitted Mr. Turski, but there were no beds available. The alternative then became whether to admit him into an emergency bed and keep him in emergency overnight or send him home and hope things were all right He sent Mr. Turski home and four hours later that individual was dead.

There is a coroner’s inquest that has been ordered into the case. Dr. Broadwell, the coroner who presided over this case, has quite clearly indicated in an article that appeared in the Windsor Star that he feels one of the contributing factors in the death of Mr. Turski was the fact there were no active-treatment beds available for this individual to be admitted for observation. Let me quote from the Windsor Star so the members of the government who are here tonight will not think this is just a figment of the imagination of an opposition member:

“Coroner Dr. Douglas Broadwell has called an inquest for April 27 into the death of 78-year-old Anthony Turski of 1806 Alexis Road in Windsor because he believes overcrowding at Metropolitan Hospital was a factor in the death. Dr. Broadwell said overcrowding at the hospital was the reason for calling an inquest in response to concerns expressed by Mr. Turski’s family. He said he personally feels the fact there were no beds available was a factor in the death.”

That is pretty clear. But when I raised that point in the Legislature, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said I should be embarrassed to make such an accusation. I had talked to the coroner and I had talked to the emergency doctor and I knew what I was talking about.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) said it was an irresponsible statement. I suggest -- and I think the members of the opposition parties agree -- the policies of this government that contributed to the death of Mr. Turski were irresponsible and should be changed.

The doctors in the city of Windsor have said in an article that appeared very recently in the Windsor Star that risks are being taken in the hospitals of Windsor -- and I would assume in the hospitals of Ontario -- that normally would not have been taken. Let me quote from an article that appeared in the Windsor Star on March 8 of this year. It says:

“Doctors say the Ontario-government cutback in active-treatment hospital beds in Windsor is hurting the community and forcing doctors to make choices they should not have to make. But stacking them in emergency rooms is becoming more common and with 259 active beds scheduled for closure by 1981, one in every five in the city, the bed shortage can only get worse.

What it means to the community is a definite deterioration in health care, according to doctors interviewed by the Star. Dr. John Greenaway, president of the Essex County Medical Society, said he and other physicians are slowly being limited in seeking out the best possible care for each of our patients. It is possible the whole system could be jammed with patients requiring early admission.’”

The article goes on to say that doctors are taking legal and medical risks in the city of Windsor they never would have taken in the past. But because of the lack of active-treatment beds and the backup in emergency rooms they are having to take these risks -- risks that involve people’s lives. As I said before, people are being forced to stay in hallways and emergency rooms when normally they would have been admitted.

Let me quote part of a letter I received from a constituent who had to bring his grandfather to a hospital to emergency. I think it gets the point across very well. It is addressed to the Minister of Health.

“On March 5, 1979, Dr. Yee from Windsor, Ontario, after examining my grandfather, Mr. Alfred Bellehumeur, decided to have him admitted to Hotel Dieu Hospital. My grandfather, accompanied by my father and myself, went to the emergency ward at approximately 5 p.m. on the above date. Please bear in heart and in mind while reading this letter that Mr. Bellehumeur, a lifetime resident of Ontario, is currently 88 years old and had never been admitted to a hospital. The experience of an emergency room can be uncomfortable, and not the most relaxed. Therefore, I am certain that you can empathize with the trauma this man, 88 years, underwent.

“The emergency ward was at the time filled beyond capacity and I was informed by the nursing supervisor that the medical stall was at a minimum. My grandfather was placed in a small room where he was examined by Dr. Gopinathan. At this time the physician confirmed a diagnosis of internal bleeding and that he should be admitted. An intravenous of plasma was then started.

“Approximately one half-hour later my grandfather had to be moved from his present room to another area as the examining area was needed for an overdose admission. Mr. Bellehumeur was then wheeled into a much larger room where his stretcher was parked beside six others, barely leaving enough room to walk alongside of any other bed.

“Dr. Gopinathan explained to me that there were not enough available beds in the entire hospital, and that my elderly grandfather would have to be placed in an out-patient room overnight.”

The letter goes on to say what a stress this was on this 88-year-old individual, and how difficult it was that he had to stay in emergency in the out-patient room all night. He was moved the next day to a semi-private room, and then had to be moved again to a ward room. I think we have to keep in mind, as the letter says, this 88-year-old individual had never been admitted to hospital in his life, and the first time that he had to, be admitted, for a fairly serious problem that eventually was diagnosed as a bleeding ulcer, he had to stay in an emergency room overnight and go through several transfers. That kind of pressure on the individual obviously could have a very serious effect on whether or not the person could come out of it without suffering maybe death, or at least making the problem much more complicated than it would be otherwise.

I would like to read briefly one other letter that I have received. I must say that over the course of the last number of weeks I have been flooded with a number of phone calls and letters that I have received on this particular problem in the city of Windsor. This letter is also addressed to the minister.

“I am writing to protest about the alarming deterioration in the health services in this province, brought about either by decisions made by your government or by its failure to take action. I refer of course to the continuing cutbacks in hospital services, to the $9.80 per diem surcharge for hospital care after 60 days, and to the opting out of doctors from OHIP.

“Firstly, hospital cutbacks: In September I was taken to Grace Hospital in Windsor by ambulance because of an acute attack of back pain which immobilized me for five weeks. I was unable to stand for more than five minutes without pain, let alone walk or climb stairs. I was told very apologetically by the emergency-room doctor that I would probably need a series of tests in order to diagnose the problem and that these could probably be done in a day by the hospital, but they would have to arrange through my family doctor because, unfortunately, there were no beds available.

“Indeed, they were short of emergency-room facilities because they were occupied by patients who were awaiting admission. Certainly, my life was not endangered by failure to be admitted, but it required five days of trips to my doctor’s office and to go to the downtown radiologist and to the orthopaedist’s office. Each trip was followed by several hours of extreme pain from the aggravation of so much movement. During all of this, the treatment prescribed was complete bed rest. I have since discovered that my situation was by no means unusual in Windsor. So much for the alleged surplus of hospital beds.”

The letter goes on to talk about the $9.80 charge to chronic-care patients, as well as the doctors opting out. This is just another example of an individual who had to go through not just inconvenience but pain as a result of this government’s lack of funding and lack of planning on hospitals in the city of Windsor. I think there are examples that apply to the rest of Ontario.

Let’s also examine what the effects of these cutbacks have been on the workers in the hospitals of this province. A couple of weeks back, my leader came to Windsor and we met with a number of the unions and workers involved in the hospitals, along with my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall). The workers told us very clearly that what is happening in the hospitals is that the workmen’s compensation eases have been increasing because the workers don’t have two people to help move somebody from one bed to another. One worker has to do that, therefore there are more back injuries and other injuries in the workplace.

The emotional stress is incredible on the workers. The sick days that are being used by the people who work in our hospitals have also increased dramatically. I think the best description that any of the workers gave to my leader and to my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich was, “Hospitals used to be happy places to work; but now I get up in the morning and I have to go to my hospital to work and I don’t want to, because it is no longer a happy place to work.”

When a worker is not happy doing his job, then we all know what happens to the quality of the service; it obviously decreases.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Does that mean you’re not happy in your job?

Mr. Cooke: I’m very happy in my job. I would be much happier if I were in the minister’s position though, and we will be one of these days.

Mr. Rotenberg: Don’t hold your breath. You won’t he over here for half a century.

Mr. Grande: It won’t take that long.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: The way the members opposite are handling the problems in this province and the problems of health care, let me tell the House, they won’t be there too long.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I do want to speak very briefly also about the problem of doctors opting out, because it is one and the same problem. I must start off by saying I think the doctors who are involved in the health insurance plan in this province do have some very legitimate complaints. The number of weeks they have to wait to be paid for their claims is incredible. They shouldn’t have to wait that long. There must be a way of simplifying the bureaucracy and the number of forms they have to fill out. Other provinces have done so.

My leader in his response to the throne speech pointed out that in Saskatchewan only two per cent of the doctors have opted out. The doctors in that province don’t seem to be dissatisfied, as they are here in Ontario. The fact is that Ontario, of all the provinces in this country, obviously has the most serious problem with doctors opting out. That is why, in the federal campaign, Ontario is the focus of the attack of our party for the erosion of universal access.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health, if he were here this evening, how the people of Amherstburg, for example, are going to benefit from the announcement he made last week. He said a Zenith number would be available and people from all over the province could phone and find out where a doctor who is opted in to the system is located so that they could then use the system.

The people of Amherstburg have six doctors; all of them have opted out. How will a direct line to Toronto to talk to the OMA benefit the people of Amherstburg? Quite clearly it won’t benefit them at all. In fact an article appeared in the Windsor Star last week, after the Minister of Health made his statement, The headline read, “Timbrell says Ride to City for Doctors.” I’ll read part of the article:

“Amherstburg residents who want to go to a doctor still in OHIP will have to continue to drive to Windsor or somewhere else where one is available. The provincial government changes to the health-care procedures announced Thursday do not help the people living in communities like Amherstburg, where all doctors have left the healthcare scheme.”

[9:15]

The article goes on and it quotes the Minister of Health. It also quotes Dr. Vail, who is the president of the OMA. Both seem to indicate that driving 17 miles to Windsor shouldn’t be all that difficult.

It may not be difficult for Dr. Vail, because I am sure he has one or more cars. It wouldn’t be difficult for the Minister of Health, and it wouldn’t even be difficult for me because I have a car. But how about a single-parent mother, for example, on mother’s allowance through no fault of her own, who doesn’t have and can’t afford a car? How is that individual to travel from Amherstburg to Windsor? The public transportation between the two communities is very poor.

How is the senior citizen, who may not be able to drive because of poor eyesight or doesn’t like to drive during winter months because of the snow -- something I think we can all understand -- going to travel from Amherstburg to Windsor to find a doctor who’s opted out?

Clearly, the announcement made by the Minister of Health last week will not solve the problem for the people of Amherstburg. It won’t solve the problem for the people of Peterborough, where 70 per cent of doctors have opted out. It won’t solve the problem for the people of Orillia where, I believe, 50 per cent have opted out. The Minister of Health is, obviously, from articles which appeared in yesterday’s Globe and Mail, having extreme difficulty in convincing doctors that this is a problem.

I think we also have to look at the number of specialists opting out. In Windsor, as of April 1, our only neurosurgeon, Dr. Kleider, opted out of OHIP. Where does that leave the people of Windsor when they need a neurosurgeon? They could maybe travel to London, which is 120 miles away. They could travel to Detroit but the cost there would be extremely high.

Let me give the House an example of what is going to happen to the people of Windsor -- to individuals. There’s an individual, Mr. Sayegh, in my riding who I assisted in getting a disability pension through the Ministry of Community and Social Services. He got his disability pension. I believe he and his wife and, I think, two children receive something in the neighbourhood of $425 a month. That’s what they have to live on. He can’t work. He’s totally disabled because of a back problem.

He had surgery performed on him by Dr. Kleider a number of months back. The surgery was not totally successful and further surgery is required. He had an appointment to go to see Dr. Kleider in March of this year. Dr. Kleider’s office called and rescheduled the appointment for April. I’m not saying that necessarily had anything to do with the fact that Dr. Kleider was opting out on April 1. It was probably just a coincidence. But, nevertheless, when Dr. Kleider’s office called, they indicated to Mr. Sayegh that it would be advisable for him to bring $75 to pay for the office appointment. This individual has to put up $75 from his own pocket to see Pr. Kleider, the only neurosurgeon in the city of Windsor.

There’s no alternative. And all he gets is $425 a month from the Minister of Community and Social Services on a disability pension. That is completely unacceptable to the people of Windsor. I should think it would even be unacceptable to the government; I hope that it would be unacceptable to the government. There are going to be other cases similar to that. I hope to have the opportunity to raise them with the Minister of Health, either by letter or during the question period.

It is a real problem -- doctors opting out. It is a real problem of doctors in certain specialties opting cut. The statement by the Minister of Health last week that all services would be offered at the OHIP rate in hospitals doesn’t comfort me at all because I don’t know how it’s going to be accomplished; the minister doesn't know how it’s going to be accomplished; the OMA doesn’t know how it’s going to be accomplished; and the OHA doesn’t know how it’s going to be accomplished. I am really concerned for the people of Windsor and for the other people across this province who are experiencing similar situations.

If, in fact, the minister does get some kind of agreement with the OMA and the OHA and we have all services offered in hospital at the OHIP rate, I would suggest that what is going to happen is this. If the only way some people get medical care is by going to a hospital for that medical care, then they will use the hospital. I don’t blame them. But the implications for the Ministry of Health budget are very significant.

What will happen is that they will be using the hospitals for their care; they will be using the hospitals and the emergency rooms. That is the most expensive way to get a checkup or to see someone about an earache or a throat infection. Services in hospitals should not be used for that purpose. We should be using family practitioners or clinics, because those are much more appropriate and much less expensive for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve indicated to you and to the members of the Legislature some of the problems we’re experiencing in Windsor with our health-care system. I do want to spend just a very few minutes on the area for which I’m critic for the New Democratic Party, the area of colleges and universities. I’m not going to go into it in any great length because it won’t be too long before we’ll be debating a bill to amalgamate the ministries of Colleges and Universities and Education, and I think we can get into that in great depth at that particular time.

I do want to point out that the level of funding to colleges and universities is also extremely inadequate at this time.

Mr. Grande: Is the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) ever coming back to the House?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, yes. She is out of the country on government business.

Mr. Cooke: Let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker -- I’m sure you’ll appreciate this -- that some of the universities, in particular the small universities, are suffering very severely from the cutbacks by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and by this government.

For example, Brock University in St. Catharines, a university that should be close to the heart of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), got an increase of only 4.9 per cent in its operating grant for 1978-79 -- that despite the fact that inflation is running around nine per cent, close to 10 per cent. Really, inflation for colleges and universities is running well over 10 per cent, because energy costs have increased well over 10 per cent and the cost of paper and other supplies has increased well over 10 per cent. Therefore the inflation rate for colleges and universities is really much higher than the nine-point-something per cent that is reflected by the CPI.

Carleton got only a 3.6 per cent increase in their operating grants for 1978-79; Guelph got only 4.5 per cent; Lakehead, 4.6 per cent. I note that the Minister of Northern Affairs is here this evening. Lakehead, a university in northwestern Ontario, got only --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s a great institution.

Mr. Cooke: It is a great institution. I had the pleasure of visiting it last fall.

Mr. Grande: You are starving them to death.

Mr. Cooke: But those people over there are starving it --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Enrolment is up; everybody is happy.

Mr. Cooke: -- and if they stay in power for many more years they’ll see the doors of that university close because of your inadequate funding.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No way; dedicated, loyal people.

Mr. Cooke: Laurentian University, another northern university, got a 4.6 per cent increase. So much for the commitment to northern Ontario by the Minister of Northern Affairs.

McMaster University got a 3.7 per cent increase in their operating grants. Maybe that’s one of the reasons the people of Wentworth from the Hamilton area tonight decided to elect a New Democratic Party member instead of a government member.

Trent University, a university that’s represented in this House now by a Tory member, got only a 2.3 per cent increase in its operating grants. Not only have 70 per cent of the area’s doctors opted out of OHIP and not only is the government trying to destroy their universal access to the medical care system, but the government’s also frying to destroy their universal access -- a right that should exist in this province -- to post-secondary education.

Mr. Grande: The member is not doing his work.

Mr. Cooke: The University of Western Ontario got only 4.9 per cent. The University of Windsor, a university that has special significance to me. Mr. Speaker, got a 3.5 per cent increase in its operating grants -- that in the light of well over a 10 per cent increase in the cost of living for universities. Finally, York University got only 4.1 per cent. Those are the universities that got under five per cent increases in their operating grants for 1978-79.

What’s happening is that universities like Trent and Brock -- well, I would think that this government will never close a university outright. The former Minister of Colleges and Universities who was here a few minutes ago made the commitment last year in estimates that they will not close any universities. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, they’ll do the same thing to the small universities that they’re doing to the small hospitals of this province. They won’t close them; they’ll starve them. And the local boards of governors will have to make those decisions themselves.

When you continually have to stop offering courses and close down programs because of a lack of money to finance those programmes and courses, the only alternative is to close the institution. There does come a point where a university is no longer a university because of the lack of variety of courses that’s offered.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that universities like Trent and Brook, Laurentian and Lakehead are going to be in that position very shortly, if they’re not in it already. I visited all those institutions, all four of them, and I know their situation. I know the plight they’re in. They’re not any longer cutting fat, they’re now cutting muscle. They’re now cutting programs, and they’re now into a cycle that’s going to be difficult to stop. When you cut a course, that makes the institution not quite as attractive as it was before and then enrolments decline. And when enrolments decline because of the formula funding we have for universities in this province, you’re cut back further from less funding. So it’s a never-ending cycle.

Mr. Grande: No wonder the students refuse to go to universities. We are losing them.

Mr. Cooke: I think what we have to do is to look very seriously at the method of funding for universities in this province. We have to go into something different from the formula funding, which not only penalizes small universities by declining enrolment, but also creates competition between universities. We see now advertisements by the University of Toronto, by York University, by Windsor University -- all the universities -- attempting to compete with each other. You can’t blame them, because the formula funding encourages that, but the fact is they are competing with taxpayers’ money.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

I don’t mind Ford competing with Chrysler and GM, with their money, but I don’t like the idea of taxpayers’ money being spent to compete among public institutions. I think that’s a misuse of the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Grande: As long as they compete with one another they won’t put pressure on the government.

Mr. Cooke: The other sad thing about the present situation is that the universities, when they are competing with each other for bodies, are competing for the same 62 per cent of grade 13 graduates who have always attended university. The participation rate among working-class students has not increased over the last number of years. We have the same types of students attending university today as we bad 10 years ago. We have more of them, but the same types.

I would really like to see an effort on the part of this government, by funding. There can be financial incentives for universities to get into special programs to encourage students from working-class families to enter the post-secondary system. But we can get into that in great depth doting the debate on the bill to amalgamate the two ministries and the estimates debate that will be coming up shortly.

I want to spend a little bit of time on one institution in particular that has received considerable press but has offered something --

Mr. Grande: I hope the minister will be here for that.

Mr. Gregory: What happened to restraint?

Mr. Cooke: Restraint for what?

Mr. Gregory: What you said in your speech.

Mr. Cooke: I’m sorry, but when one looks at the problems in this province it’s difficult for an opposition member to talk for only a short period of time because there are so many of them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What are the alternatives? There is no alternative but doom and gloom; no ideas, no imagination, no creative ability.

Mr. Gregory: And you have nothing to say anyway.

Mr. Cooke: Ryerson, an institution in this province that has contributed far and beyond what many institutions have contributed, is being starved by provincial funding. Ryerson got only a 5.4 per cent increase in operating grants last year and as a result is suffering and suffering significantly. There was an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail yesterday outlining some of the problems.

Let me read from the throne speech just one short paragraph and then go on to talk about Ryerson just for a few minutes, This is from the throne speech: “The present education structure does not meet fully today’s needs for highly skilled persons in the manufacturing and service industries. In answer to this need, my government will implement a comprehensive business and industrial training program involving our secondary schools, colleges, organized labour and the business community.”

I would agree with that goal, but I would suggest Ryerson is one institution in this province that produces graduates that are needed in our economy. The programs offered at Ryerson are directly related to the needs in our province and in the economy, and it’s quite clear the types of graduates that come from Ryerson are needed in the economy because they’re placed in jobs. Their job placement record is second to none in this province. The applications for that institution for first year are something like 12,000 when they can accept just over 3,000.

What is this government doing? In the throne speech it says it’s committed to producing students and graduates who are needed in the economy and who come out with practical skills, yet it is starving Ryerson. It is starving them to the point where the president of that institution has indicated that 70 to 100 part-time faculty members are going to have to be laid off this fall unless something changes.

[9:30]

Last year there was quite a fuss made about the metallurgy program that might be cut out of that institution. Thank goodness some interim funding was made available by the institution itself; they went to private industry and got some funding. That is not going to be ongoing funding. That institution is in trouble.

They get funding on the basic income unit which is comparable for Ryerson to an arts and science student. The fact of the matter is, the cost to put a student through Ryerson is much higher than it is for an arts and science student. It is much more expensive because of the equipment needed and because of the low faculty-student ratio which is so very important to an institution like Ryerson.

While the low faculty-student ratio is very important, the fact of the matter is that ratio has increased dramatically over the last number of years. I am trying to locate how much of an increase we have experienced at Ryerson. In 1971-72 the ratio was 14.5 to one at Ryerson. Because of the inadequate funding at that institution, the ratio has now increased to 16.1 to one.

In Britain, where they have quite a number of polytechnics, the ratio is eight to one. I would suggest to you that if a polytechnic is going to turn out quality graduates, we have to have a small faculty-student ratio in order to make sure what they learn can be very intense and a number of hours of individual attention that an instructor can give to the student is available.

In ending, I would like to say over the next number of weeks the Ryerson issue will be raised time and time again. I am looking forward to the day the Minister of Education returns to the House so we can question her on this. I look forward to the debate which will be taking place when the legislation to amalgamate Colleges and Universities and Education comes before this House.

I can indicate to you now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things this party will be attempting to do is to refer the bill to amalgamate the two ministries to the social development committee, so trustees of local boards of education, as well as boards of governors members, presidents of universities and colleges and Ryerson, as well as students, can all come before the social development committee, and talk about the amalgamation and the inadequate funding taking place in our education system in this province.

Education is critical to an industrial strategy. Ryerson is critical to an industrial strategy in this province and in this country and I certainly hope the meeting which will be taking place between Ryerson officials and the Minister of Education in the next few weeks will hear fruit. I hope the government recognizes Ryerson is a unique institution which requires unique attention and unique funding.

I have been very pleased to participate in this throne speech debate and, as I say, I look forward to discussing these issues during question period and debates on particular pieces of legislation.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Kenora.

Mr. Gaunt: Bringing in the heavies again.

Mr. Havrot: Physically or mentally?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It has been some time since I entered a throne debate in this legislature. I checked my records and I believe it is the first time since the Speaker of this House was elevated to his post that I have had the opportunity to speak in a throne debate.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s the reason for the boutonnière.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you, sir, on your selection for that very important post and of course to commend you on the excellent manner in which you have conducted the affairs of this House for the past several months. Sometimes we all share with you the onerous responsibilities you have. We realize your task is not an easy one; it’s most difficult on many occasions. I’m sure the compliments you receive from both sides of the House are warranted and certainly justified. I think, Mr. Speaker, your control of the Legislature has been one of justice and fairness. I think as northerners we are doubly proud of your selection. In fact some of us in northern Ontario like to think it’s your moose-calling voice that comes to keep law and order in this Legislature --

Mr. Wildman: It’s his conductor’s voice.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- when those on the other side of the House are so unruly and so noisy.

For that very unique quality you’ve not only brought pride to your specific area, but I say to you in all sincerity --

Mr. Peterson: How do you feel about John MacBeth?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- you’ve brought a great deal of pride to all of us who live in northern Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: I will tell you his is the smartest and most successful one. I will tell you that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On a very serious note:

Last fall we in this Legislature lost a very close friend, a colleague, a dedicated public figure. To all of us he was just a great guy. I’m sure you realize I’m referring to the late John Rhodes, the former member for Sault Ste. Marie.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, he was a very close friend of mine. He was my seatmate in this Legislature. He was my parliamentary assistant for a number of years and one on whom I depended for a great deal of support, consultation and advice on many northern issues.

I want the record to show that it has been several months since he passed away. I also want the record to show very clearly that those of us in this Legislature have not forgotten him. We have not forgotten his wit, we have not forgotten his humour, his sincerity, his love for his community and for his province. I can assure his wife and family that he will be ever remembered by those of us in this Legislature.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Hon Mr. Bernier: The late John Rhodes has been replaced in this Legislature by a very able individual by the sound-thinking people of Sault Ste. Marie. He is a northerner who has excelled not only in his own community, but right across northern Ontario and indeed the entire province.

I want to extend to him my very personal compliments on his victory in that very important by-election. I also wish to compliment him on his maiden speech in this Legislature, when he seconded the speech from the throne. Following that speech, I had the pleasure of mingling with my colleagues and some of the members of the opposition. I want to put on the record today a comment I heard after the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) made his maiden speech. The comment was, “another northern star has been born.” I’m sure you’ll agree with me when I say there is a long and productive career ahead for the new member for Sault Ste. Marie in this Legislature.

I also want to take this opportunity to commend the efforts of our other new member, the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson). His excellent presentation during his motion for accepting the speech from the throne was certainly indicative of the type of remarks and presentations we in this Legislature have been used to accepting from the riding of Chatham-Kent -- truly in Chatham-Kent style. I predict too, that he will have a long, fruitful and productive life here in the Legislature, as did his predecessor, Darcy McKeough.

Earlier tonight, I believe one of the former speakers mentioned that the by-election was one in which he could take pride, one in which his party had elected two members.

Mr. Wildman: Elie is going to take a little more than that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just want to put on the record some facts and figures that clearly display that the Progressive Conservative Party of this province is on the upswing again.

Mr. Martel: You ran on Ian Deans’ shirttail and name.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We fought the Chatham-Kent by-election with success.

Mr. Wildman: You even used our colours.

Mr. Martel: Since when did you use yellow and brown?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We fought the Sault Ste. Marie by-election with success and I can say that we fought the Wentworth by-election with, indeed, a great deal of success --

Mr. Martel: That is why our guys are here and yours are sitting at home.

Mr. Hennessy: No violence, Elie, no violence.

Mr. Martel: That is the kind of success I like.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- because in 1975 the New Democratic Party member was elected by some 9,000 plurality.

Mr. Wildman: How much did Darcy win by compared to Watson?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In 1977 the New Democratic Party representative was elected by a 10,000 plurality and in 1979, in this by-election, he was elected by about a 400 plurality.

Mr. Martel: Will you give us the same figures for Chatham-Kent?

Mr. Wildman: Will you give us the same figures for Chatham-Kent?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The trend is truly there; the swing is to the Tory party of Ontario in the last three by-elections.

I am most pleased that we on this side of the House --

Mr. Cooke: Tell us about Chatham-Kent.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- can take a great deal of pride in the quality of the candidates that we had and the success that they have shown at the polls today --

Mr. Martel: Our guys will be sitting here and yours will be at home.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and I know the members behind me want to extend to both of those candidates our sincerest congratulations and, of course, compliments on their efforts.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We’ll win them next time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We certainly will. The trend is there and I would predict that following the results of Chatham-Kent and Sault Ste. Marie and, indeed, of Wentworth --

Mr. Wildman: You had two before and we had two before. Now you have still got two and we have got two.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- that we will not see from the other side of the House any thrust for a provincial election until, as my leader said, 1981.

Mr. Havrot: We will have another rump there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They will be scared to go to the polls because the trend is there, the feeling out there is for those of us on this side of the Legislature.

Mr. Martel: Come out now and vote on Monday.

Mr. Worton: How far out?

Mr. Martel: Come and vote on Monday.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Two-two; four-zero.

Mr. Martel: I like that.

Mr. Wildman: You had two before and we had two. We have still got two.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am most pleased to take part in this debate on the speech from the throne, a speech which in my view was one of the most thoughtful expressions of concern for the future of Ontario we have heard in this House for some time.

Her Honour has presented us with a number of challenges which all of us in this House, I am sure, wish to consider carefully as we approach the current session of this Legislature.

Mr. Wildman: The Year of the Child.

Hon. Mr. Bernier. The first of these is a concern for the continued economic viability of Ontario as a leader among provinces in pointing directions which other jurisdictions may wish to pursue. She has stressed to us the need to re-assess our goals, our priorities and our ways of looking at our economy, our social concerns and our place within Confederation, and she has challenged us to be both realistic and responsive to the changes which have taken place all around us.

These changes are reflected in increasingly difficult world markets upon which we have normally relied, particularly in the United States, and which are changing in response to new pressures placed upon the United States and are reflected in inflation, energy shortages and loss of its competitive position in key industries.

All members of this House share a number of concerns, regardless of our political affiliation. We all wish to see greater strides to ensure social and economic justice for all our citizens of this province. We all wish to see a greater utilization of the wealth to guarantee to those less able to provide for themselves a fair share of our provincial wealth.

Mr. Martel: But?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We wish to see a greater equalization of services to all regions of this province; the north, the eastern and western regions, so that our programs are equally available to all our citizens. Where we differ we do so because of the different priorities which we place on those to be achieved and the means that are best suited to achieve them.

[9:45]

As a northerner, I am particularly concerned about the needs of my constituents and all those who live in small communities, some of them isolated communities, such as Sachigo -- well known to you, Mr. Speaker -- Ogoki, Deer Lake, Big Trout Lake, Armstrong, Nakina, Minaki, my own home town of Hudson, which do not as yet have a municipal organization able to represent their citizens in day-to-day dealings with the provincial government. I am concerned also with the larger northern communities, such as Atikokan, Manitouwadge, Marathon, Dryden and Kenora, all of which depend on a single-resource for a major part of their employment opportunities and their economic viability.

Hudson is perhaps an excellent example of a community which has known prosperity and adversity from the time it was founded to serve as a transportation base for supplies being shipped to the Red Lake gold camp, a role which has long since vanished. For a number of years Hudson existed as a dormitory community to Sioux Lookout until a viable forest product company began operations. Since then it has known every fluctuation in the woods industry -- at times prosperous, at times holding and hopping that an upturn in the market would occur before the inevitable shutdown.

Like other small communities, Hudson’s single forestry industry has known a number of owners, some better than others in their understanding of how to operate in the north. But through all these experiences the community and its people developed a degree of resourcefulness, independence of spirit, and determination to survive.

Mr. Martel: In desperation.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Sometimes. Growing up in a community such as Hudson has brought home to me the fundamentally important role government plays in the day-to-day lives of people. Governments that are remote from the north cannot possibly understand the concerns of its people or respond to the changing forces of the economy. Changes of only a few cents in the value of minerals, timber products, fur prices, fish prices, higher gasoline and heating oil costs, hydro costs and taxation policies can mean the difference between employment and unemployment, a sound community industry or no industry at all.

If northerners place a higher priority on jobs in primary-resource industries than other citizens of this province, it is because we have lived through literally dozens of fluctuations in our economy. We know all too well the consequences of changes in world prices for minerals. Northerners also feel a strong loyalty to the land, its resources and the part these resources play in the economy of Canada as a whole. We also feel a strong sense of community identity and, more often than not, we tend to return to our home community to live and raise our families.

It is because of this pride in being northerners that we at times look impatiently upon our critics in other parts of this province who seem to feel that we exist for their pleasure -- a fishing resource to be kept for them, a wilderness to be screened from development for their interests and for their needs, not our own. Because of the vast distances which separate northern communities from each other and from our provincial capital, we have traditionally felt neglected, isolated and apart from the decision-making process of the government.

When I was first elected to this House in 1966, I travelled back and forth to my constituency by train. Because of the travel time -- about 30 hours -- I was only able to go home a few times each year. Today I can travel to Kenora, Dryden, Sioux Lookout or Hudson each week, All of these communities are as far from Toronto as Halifax, Nova Scotia, or Memphis, Tennessee, or Tampa, Florida. That this is possible reflects a significant change which has taken place within Ontario and here at Queen’s Park in basic attitudes towards the north.

Over the past number of years this government has listened to the needs of northerners more carefully than any previous administration in history. The Premier of this province, during the years that he served as Minister of Education, was a frequent visitor to the north. He showed his interest and his concern through support he gave us in providing funding for educational institutions which are now equal to any in Ontario; by holding cabinet meetings in the north; policy field meetings in the north; meetings with the chambers of commerce; with unions in the north; and with municipal associations. In many other ways, this government has shown its concern and its interest in the north, an interest which has been reflected in new highways, new airstrips, new hospitals, new telecommunications installations, and sewer and water projects in many small communities. Perhaps most important, this government has affirmed the right of northerners to participate directly in the decision-making process.

I also feel northern members of this House have worked well together in putting forward the needs of the north; members like yourself, Mr. Speaker, the member for Rainy River, and the members for Sudbury and Algoma-Manitoulin. Indeed, all the members on this side of the House have put forward policy suggestions which have been reflected in the decisions this House has taken to benefit northerners.

As I mentioned earlier we have differences about our priorities. I feel the emphasis Her Honour has placed on the need to promote the economic wellbeing of the province as a whole by strengthening the private sector, deregulating government programs and encouraging plant modernization in the pulp and paper industry, is of fundamental importance.

Right now, in my own riding, the Reed mill at Dryden is a source of great concern, not only to this government and to the members of this House, but to all the residents of Dryden and northern Ontario. The Reed mill is the main employer of that community, and the wealth which it creates is the base economy for that entire community. This mill, like a great many others in this province, is an old mill which needs to be modernized and made more efficient, not only to protect the environment of the north but to be competitive in today’s market.

I must confess to a certain impatience, which I share with the residents of Dryden, when I have to listen to the critics of Reed because of the narrowness of a vision they have of the needs of this community. Indeed, at times there is a callous disregard of these needs. There are some here in the south who would like to see this mill closed because they do not like the Reed company; or because of a narrow political point of view that Reed, because it’s a foreign-based multinational company, should be kicked out of Canada and the mill taken over by Ontario.

I am far less interested in the base operation of Reed or the location of its boardroom than I am in making sure this company behaves as a responsible corporate citizen, obeys the laws of this country and the laws of this province; and provides social and economic security for the many thousands of people who are its employees and who serve them.

Right now the company, like other pulp and paper companies, is enjoying a mild period of prosperity; not because it has been able to modernize its plants and lower its costs, but because of the weakening Canadian dollar. This is small comfort for a government or a Reed employee. If our paper industry cannot get its house in order right now, there is very little likelihood that it will survive the inevitable downturn that will come when the dollar strengthens and we again have to compete against mills in the United States which are newer and have considerably lower wood costs than our mills can achieve.

To be realistic, the time has come for government to take a longer view of the needs, not of this industry, but of the men and women who make up its work force -- people who live in the north and are determined to continue living in the north. If the government listens to some critics of this industry who would hobble it, nationalize it or destroy it in some other way for the sake of environmental purity, this would have catastrophic consequences on literally dozens of small communities such as Dryden. Nor do I believe it is the proper role of government to take over major resource industries and invest hundreds of millions of public dollars, obtained through taxation, to do what the private sector can do best, if given leadership by government.

Mr. Wildman: And yet you are giving them grants.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The time has come for government to take advantage of the profitability this industry is now experiencing to require that some of these profits now be reinvested to help guarantee that Dryden, Kenora, the mill at Sault Ste. Marie and many other communities, will continue to have a pulp and paper industry for many years from now on.

Mr. Wildman: What about the sawmills?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, the sawmills too.

The formula which the government has developed -- a formula of assistance on the ratio of $1 for every $3 invested by the company -- is I feel a responsible position to take, providing that the government remains in control of the direction of these investment funds to ensure that the public’s long-term interest in these mills is protected.

A few weeks ago members of the resources development committee heard Mayor Tommy Jones of Dryden put the case for his community in his very eloquent terms. I felt that the committee listened carefully to him and I congratulate both the chairman of that committee and its members for the concern they showed for the needs Of the town of Dryden.

At that time Mayor Jones suggested that members of the committee visit Dryden and see the town for themselves, visit the Reed mill and meet local residents to clarify in their own minds the needs of this community. I support Mayor Jones in this suggestion. I would invite any interested members of this Legislature to visit Dryden and to spend enough time in the area to visit other communities as well, communities such as Minaki

-- we all know what’s going on in Minaki.

Mr. Martel: Yes, nothing.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There will be, just give us a few weeks.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You will be sorry you said that, Elie.

Mr. Martel: Will I? I hope so. Did you get a buyer?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is another community solely dependent upon a single resource industry, the tourist industry. And Atikokan in the riding of my friend from Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) a community experiencing the consequences of depletion of mining resources. We can take a Nordair 737 and fly first to the riding of the new member for Sault Ste. Marie --

Mr. Lawlor: Surely a minister of the crown doesn’t read his speeches?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, this one is so important I had to get it on the record. I didn’t want to get interjections from the opposition, so I thought I would put my remarks down and make sure that they were properly recorded.

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you just hand them to her and she will record them and have them printed in Hansard?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And then to the riding of the new member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) and then land at the Dryden municipal airport in my own riding. However, we will have to book well in advance, because Nordair is now generating 20 per cent more traffic on this run than Transair did a year ago --

Mr. Wildman: Because it’s owned by the government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and despite the fact that they are using larger aircraft it is not always easy to get a seat.

Mr. Martel: Good government project, eh?

Mr. Wildman: Joe Clark wants to sell Nordair.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would hope the members of the House would come to Dryden before any hard decisions are taken which could affect the well-being of that community.

I would hope the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) would come with us; he has said he would. It would add to his knowledge and his understanding of the north and perhaps it would help him to develop a more sympathetic and more flexible attitude to the basic needs of northerners.

Mr. Peterson: He knows more about the north than you will ever know. He can understand more in five minutes than you will ever learn in a year.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Leader of the Opposition, I believe, made a trip to Sault Ste. Marie and said he hoped he would never have to return.

An hon. member: That was Transair!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: With all his weaknesses and all his faults, I still extend my invitation to him to visit northeastern Ontario and northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Haggerty: What about Minaki Lodge?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Minaki Lodge? I said earlier today, sir, that the member for Erie would be first on my list of those to be invited, because it’s going to be a gala opening in the not too distant future.

In her speech Her Honour also recognized the strategic importance of tourism to the Ontario economy. She noted that last year this industry experienced a 10 per cent growth in revenue. The government has committed itself to an expanded promotional program instituted by my former colleague and that great northerner, the late John Rhodes. The “We treat you royally” program has been accepted by this industry as one of the most effective promotional programs this province has ever known.

This past weekend I had the opportunity of visiting the Minneapolis sports show to meet all the tourist operators from northern Ontario who are participating in this year’s show. If the enthusiasm that they reflected from the response they are receiving in Minneapolis and a few weeks ago at Milwaukee translates into border crossings and bookings at our camps, the northwest tourism operators, in 1979, will have one of the best years they have known.

[10:00]

Many of the operators were displaying “We treat you royally” badges and other badges distributed by my ministry -- “Travel north”, “Fish north” and many others.

Tourism in the north is everyone’s business. The retail merchants, the restaurant owners, the automobile service attendants; all profit from tourism. What has been lacking has been a training program for employees in this industry and this year the government intends to offer training programs for 25,000 of these people.

After leaving Minneapolis I went to Thunder Bay to announce there the capital highway construction program for this year, which was also announced in Sault Ste. Marie by my colleague and parliamentary assistant, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane).

Mr. Peterson: Another great Canadian, John Lane.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In this House you will recall that my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) made a similar announcement.

Mr. Haggerty: Tell us about your new office in --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This year’s highway construction projects total $52,000,000 -- a significant increase over last year, about $1,500,000. The total value of projects, including those initiated last year, comes to approximately $90,000,000.

I might say that in addition to the $52,000,000 which was in the regular highway capital construction program, we in the Ministry of Northern Affairs -- for your information, Mr. Speaker, since I’m sure those of us who live in northern Ontario would be interested to know this -- my ministry will add from the regional priority budget another $11,000,000. So we can see about $63,000,000 of new construction begun in the north in this fiscal year.

The lack of an adequate transportation policy for the north restrained our development for decades, as we all know. Not too long ago travel between communities was severely and seriously restricted, just because it took so long to travel the dusty, gravel roads which separated us.

In the far north, residents of our isolated communities did not have a year-round source of supply because they were dependent on float-equipped or ski-equipped aircraft. This year three more of these communities will have their first air strip -- Deer Lake, Sachigo and Ogoki.

You would be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, because I believe Ogoki is in your own riding, that we will be parachuting bulldozers into Ogoki, through an arrangement with the federal government. It is the only means of getting equipment into that community. Also in your riding, we will be extending the length of the air strip at Pickle Lake.

Mr. Haggerty: Any new fire trucks?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. We will also pave the highway shoulders from Keewatin to the Manitoba border. We will widen more miles of the Red Lake road; we will build 16 new passing lanes throughout the north and we will improve air strip facilities at Geraldton -- all important parts of a dramatically improved transportation network for the north.

Just as northerners in this province have needs which are unique to them, so too have the residents of southern Ontario who account for by far the majority of the citizens of this province. Very similar conditions exist in our sister provinces.

In recognition of our common concerns, ministers responsible for northern affairs met for the first time last fall in Fort McMurray, Alberta. The conference resulted from a number of visits I had made to ministers in several provinces of Canada shortly after the Ministry of Northern Affairs was established. I’m particularly pleased to announce that Ontario will host a similar conference at Thunder Bay from September 5 to September 7 of this year, again focusing attention on northern Ontario. These conferences are designed to be relatively informal to permit ministers to share with each other both the problems they encounter and the steps each is taking to deal with them. Last fall was our first meeting.

A great deal of discussion centred on identifying our major concerns. Some approaches taken in other jurisdictions differ from those taken in this province in the degree to which responsibility is assumed by the province for the administration of unorganized communities. Some provinces emphasize a co-ordinating role; others, direct administration; and some provinces designate regional development priorities as a major focus of attention. Our approach in the Ministry of Northern Affairs was to attempt to achieve a balance between direct financial responsibility for projects we identified as being of importance to northern communities, such as our regional priorities program, our highway capital program, the access roads program, and encouraging development of local service boards made up of local residents.

Mr. Haggerty: What about that nickel policy for --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It will come.

Mr. Grande: Is that a rose in your lapel there?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s a beautiful carnation to celebrate our success in Wentworth tonight.

We will have an opportunity to discuss each of these approaches in greater detail at another time, but I think it is important, in the context of this debate, to point out the approach that we have taken in this House. The establishment of the Ministry of Northern Affairs has given us perhaps the most comprehensive and effective means of dealing with the unique needs of the north to be found anywhere in Canada.

This ministry, which I am pleased to head, is only two years old and has a long way to go before we’ll be able to fully assess the wisdom of the course we have taken. However, it is also the first time any government in this country has attempted to respond so directly to the individual needs of a region.

Mr. Haggerty: What have you done?

Hon. Ms. Bernier: Our staff is small in numbers and I hope it will always remain small, because we are not, and should not be, attempting to duplicate the responsibility of other ministries.

Mr. Haggerty: Time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Time? Where was I?

Mr. Cureatz: Your staff; you hope it stays small.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We certainly don’t want to duplicate the responsibilities of other ministries of government which appear to be taking any responsibility away from municipal governments and boards. We see ourselves as a catalyst for northern communities, providing the necessary financial resources to make things happen that otherwise would not be funded at all, such as participation in the Hornepayne Mall; the development of municipal medical clinics; a bursary program for medical and dental students -- programs which cut across each of the policy fields and other ministries and which are designed by northerners to benefit northerners. Undoubtedly, we will make mistakes. We are far from perfect, as I am reminded from time to time by members of this House. But we are trying, to the best of our ability, to work with each community, whether it has an organized structure or not.

We have worked closely with the federal government’s DREE program. Last year I was pleased to sign, on behalf of the province, DREE subsidiary agreements totalling more than $90,000,000 for essential services in the north. These Ontario DREE projects are currently important for the north and they provide both governments with a greater degree of flexibility in meeting local needs than has ever been the case in the past.

We can, on the one hand, share the cost of the upgrading of the airport at Kenora, owned and operated by the federal government; on the other hand, we can invest millions of dollars in sewer and water services. I do not feel we in Ontario have benefited as generously as we should in the DREE program. I have made this point on a number of occasions with officials from the federal government, and I intend to pursue this matter further after May 22.

Speaking about the May 22 event, I just want to snake a brief comment concerning my period as a backbencher and as a member of the select committee on election laws. I have to admit I was a little taken aback when I read the Prime Minister’s announcement that there would be a federal election on May 22. When I read further that this was a 59-day election campaign and it would cost this country in excess of $50,000,000, and when I recalled the 37 days the statutes allow for the calling of a provincial election in this province, it struck me very very forcibly that the time period is far too long.

As all members realize, since those statutes went into place and those laws went into the record hooks we have television coverage of both legislatures; the House of Commons has the daily debates televised right across Canada. I think it is fair to say the members of the House of Commons, and indeed the members of this Legislature, are receiving far more resources today than they did five or 10 years ago to assist them in communicating with their constituents on a regular basis.

As members are well aware, the transportation system of this province and this country has improved tremendously. It is no longer difficult to get from Ottawa to Vancouver or from Toronto to Kenora. We can do that in a minimum amount of time. We can move very effectively around this country and this province.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s not by air from Niagara. It takes three hours to get to Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Our airstrip development program in the remote areas of northern Ontario makes it much easier for all candidates of all parties to move around. I am convinced that 59 days for an election campaign at the federal scale and 37 days at the provincial scene are far in excess of what is needed. Something like 50 days for a federal election campaign would be more realistic.

Mr. Haggerty: Nineteen days.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It struck me more forcibly than ever because I had to say to myself, what else can they possibly say? We have been on the verge of a federal election now for 18 months? The leaders have said it all; what else can they say? They’ll first repeat what they said in the last 18 months.

I am in a similar position to those across this Legislature and across this province.

Mr. Gaunt: How are you going to vote?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My mind is made up.

Mr. Wildman: What are you going to do for Ralph Stewart?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They don’t need 59 days to tell me how to vote. We as legislators should recognize the intelligence of the public out there. They don’t need 59 days to be convinced how to vote.

Mr. Peterson: It’s not the intelligence of the electorate of Ontario you should be worried about.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we are not.

Mr. Wildman: It is going to take the Tories 59 days to make Ralph Stewart the candidate in Cochrane.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are doing an injustice to the public out there. They are more intelligent than that.

Mr. Peterson: There is no question about that. They are much smarter than you are.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We as legislators should start recognizing that and shorten up that period. Other jurisdictions have two-week and three-week elections, and we should have that too. That is my feeling.

Mr. Grande: Is that the essence of your speech?

Mr. Peterson: What are you going to do about Ralph Stewart? That is what I really want to know from you. Will you trade him for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. (Mr. Grossman)?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No way. Never, never.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Thanks.

Ms. Wildman: What about Jack Horner?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The late Jack Horner?

Mr. Wildman: The question is, will Clark appoint Ralph Stewart to the Vatican?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I say we have a great deal of catching up to do all over northern Ontario. I hear suggestions in this House that more attention should be paid to the need for secondary industry in northern Ontario. It is true, but unless essential services such as sewer and water, highways, airports, schools and hospitals are in place -- not just planned but in place -- it is impossible to have a viable secondary industry locate in northern Ontario.

In North Bay and in Sault Ste. Marie we are funding industrial parks, and also in Parry Sound, as members are very much aware. We are improving the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. We have expanded new ferry service from Tobermory to Manitoulin Island. I could go on at length as it relates to those particular items.

We have a long way to go before we can he satisfied that the needs of northern Ontario are completely met. As I have said, I would like to see a much greater interest in the needs of northern Ontario on the part of the federal government. I will say on that point, Mr. Speaker, as you are from northwestern Ontario, we have consistently returned federal Liberals to the House of Commons. Believe me, you know what we get from the federal government. They close up a post office here and there and they give us a wharf. They give us a little dock once in a while. That is about all we get in northern Ontario.

I would predict to the men in the opposition across the way that there will be a change in northern Ontario this year, there will be a change. We have had it right up to here.

Mr. Haggerty: Now you sound like Rene Levesque.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, not a new province, but a new way of thinking when it comes to selecting our representatives.

[10:15]

As I said, I would like to see a much greater interest in the needs of northern Ontario on the part of the federal government I would like this interest reflected in development dollars which we are prepared to match on an equal basis, on a 50-50 basis.

We need improved telecommunications throughout the north. Far too many communities are locked into one television channel. That is not good enough in the year 1979.

We need to pay more attention to the needs of the agricultural industry in northern Ontario. We can develop outstanding beef herds but we need more research to develop seed strain that can thrive in a northern climate. We need to develop cereals, such as wild rice, to benefit the entire north.

Until northerners enjoy the same level of public services as are taken for granted in the south, until more of our isolated and unorganized communities feel their interests are being taken into account in the decisions of this House, we cannot relax our efforts one bit.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s your government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The major interests of northerners are the same today as they have been for many years.

Mr. Haggerty: They were promised jobs by the government for seven years.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are job security, community stability and an improved quality of life to attract and keep a well-trained, efficient, workforce.

I feel we must do a great deal more to attract northerners who have left to seek post-secondary education elsewhere back to northern Ontario. There are new opportunities for professional people in the north. Through my ministry’s bursary program for doctors and dentists, I hope to show young people that they can have the same economic opportunities in these areas as others living closer to our professional training facilities.

I am pleased that Her Honour’s speech highlighted the need to improve training programs for skilled workers. Never before has there been a greater demand for skilled, highly-trained workers in the various trades in the mining and the pulp and paper industries than there is today.

We have excellent training facilities at Confederation College, Lakehead University, Algoma College in Sault Ste. Marie, at Laurentian University at Sudbury and many other schools and facilities in northern Ontario. We must find new ways to train more and more young people, born and raised in the north, who will now have the opportunity to benefit from these educational institutions so that they can take advantage of existing employment opportunities there.

It is also a major responsibility of the government to do its part to guarantee that the communities in which these young people will live are modern, attractive and well planned communities in which they can live with satisfaction. To do this, we must be able to respond to the needs as they arise, to build access roads, arenas, industrial parks, medical and dental clinics, and fund our regional priorities budget so that we can make it happen. In 1971, this government accepted the recommendations of Design for Development, phase II -- a program blueprint for development of northwestern Ontario for two decades. The report called for the creation of 18,000 new jobs over a 20-year period, a target which some felt was too high and unrealistic. Yet within the first five years more than 10,000 new jobs were created in northern Ontario.

Since 1971, major mining companies have invested more than $220,000,000 and created 1,100 new jobs. Very recently, Mr. Speaker, as you may be very much aware, the Campbell Red Lake gold mine announced a $10,000,000 expansion for its mine at Red Lake and the creation of another 50 jobs.

Since 1971, 11 new sawmills and particle board plants have been built in northwestern Ontario. Two pulp mills have undertaken major expansion programs and one new pulp and paper plant has been built. Together, these projects alone have accounted for the creation of 3,000 new jobs in this region of Ontario.

Clearly, the private sector has an important role to play in the north. It can provide new jobs and create new wealth for Ontario and for Canada. Our responsibility, as legislators, is to assist the private sector to do the job that it can do best and provide the climate of stability and confidence which attracts new capital investment.

We must also continue to provide the essential services to the small communities necessary to attract and keep a well trained labour force on projects; such as those which have been undertaken to provide major services to communities such as Thunder Bay, Dryden, Kenora, Ear Falls, Red Lake, Ignace, Pickle Lake, Nakina and Geraldton funded from our regional priorities budget. These have already gone a long way towards the goal of revitalizing northern towns and communities.

We have also taken important steps since 1971 to strengthen the financial base of northern Ontario municipalities through the provision of support grants equal to 18 per cent of the municipal tax base over and above the normal funding provided to all municipalities.

Among other grant and support programs initiated by this government are full provincial coverage of the cost of various forms of social assistance for those living in unorganized areas, special grants to community hospitals, a special grant formula applied to Ontario-funded programs to libraries and community recreational centres to compensate for higher costs in northern Ontario.

Nine years ago the government established the Northern Ontario Development Corporation to assist tourist operators and manufacturing companies. The corporation has lent more than $35,000,000 to industries and has transformed the quality of many small businesses throughout the north. The corporation is a lender of last resort, assisting businesses that banks cannot help; yet our success ratio is so high that we have been able to maintain an interest rate considerably below market rates or those offered by the Federal Business Development Bank.

The needs of our native people have always been a high priority of this government’s northern policy. Since 1971 this government has provided telecommunications services to many remote areas of northern Ontario, including the isolated communities north of the 50th parallel. Today, if you wish to visit Big Trout Lake, Sandy Lake or almost any other remote community, you can telephone throughout Canada via satellite and you will see colour television sets. Neither of these existed before this government’s northern policy came into effect. I invite the members opposite to come up there this summer with me to see it for themselves.

Mr. Peterson: We would all very much enjoy visiting you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Would you, seriously?

Mr. Peterson: We would; we are very fond of you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well come on, gentlemen. Each member has financial resources to go anywhere in the province, to take four trips a year, which will allow you to go into northern Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: What is your address, because I am going to come to your house for dinner. I want to come to your place.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If the members are sincere and want to do something for that great resource base part of this province, then I will see them up there this summer. I will look forward to it.

Mr. Peterson: We want to come to your house in person. What is your address?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Just go to northern Ontario. They will tell the member where I am. They know me up there.

Mr. Peterson: They will say you are down south.

Mr. Gaunt: Northwestern or northeastern?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Anywhere. Native people are employed to maintain and operate remote community airstrips, built and paid for by the Ontario government. We have provided funds though the municipal assistance program to maintain and improve roads within native communities. Through the northern assistance program and the rural and native housing program, we have attempted to meet the housing needs of our native people. We have instituted programs to train native teachers and classroom assistants and to provide other assistance to those students who attend secondary schools away from theft home community.

Despite the fact that the needs of our native people are supposed to be met by the federal government, we have not taken a narrow, legalistic approach to the problems which they confront in theft own communities or when they leave to live and work in other communities. We have been prepared to provide assistance to municipalities to aid them in responding to the needs of native people. We are making a sincere effort to try to find ways and means --

Mr. Mattel: Is this a filibuster?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- of extending all provincial government services to native communities.

Mr. Martel: I am waiting for my money.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have worked closely and well with both Treaty 3 and Treaty 9 councils to help them achieve their goals on behalf of the communities they represent.

One of our most successful programs across the north has been establishment of 29 Northern Affairs offices. Each is equipped with well-trained Telex operators who are in regular contact each day with all departments of the provincial government, and with the federal government as well. This program was intended to deal directly with personal needs of northerners, particularly those living in the smaller centres. Lack of an adequate communications link with the provincial government has always been a major factor, at times very critical for those of us who live north of Parry Sound.

Through our Northern Affairs offices and the many satellite offices that have been located in small communities, almost everyone in the north now has immediate contact with Queen’s Park. Answers to questions can normally be obtained within 24 hours at no cost to the individual. While we do not receive any reimbursement from the federal government, we will assist persons applying for federal assistance such as unemployment insurance benefits, Canada Pension Plan benefits, passport applications -- indeed, any matter at all that it is within our capacity to handle.

Northern Affairs officers have been encouraged to work closely with volunteer organizations wherever they are located. I am sure that all northern members of this House know who their local officer is and respect him highly for the effort he is making on behalf of his or her constituents.

Since 1971 the government has moved in a number of major ways to overcome longstanding grievances of northerners. We have made major strides in transportation, communication, housing, community planning, economic planning, industrial development, greater equality of opportunity for young people in education, trade training and accessibility of post-secondary institutions.

We still have a long way to go. My own ministry exists for the sole purpose of working daily with every community in the north, regardless of its size, to try to respond as quickly as possible to the needs as they arise, to correct mistakes and to recommend ways in which provincial programs can be made more relevant to the needs of northerners.

There is more we would like to do and could do, of course, if funds were available. But a start has been made. As Her Honour’s speech points out, a strong economy is the base on which social programs can grow. I would like to feel that when this session of the Ontario Legislature ends we will have taken the necessary steps to guarantee the future of communities such as Dryden and Atikokan, the quality of life for unorganized communities such as Hudson and Armstrong, and provide better communications for the whole of the north and attract more professionals -- more doctors and more dentists, more nurse practitioners, just to name three groups who would be encouraged to live and of course work in northern Ontario.

Finally, on a somewhat lighter note, I would like to remind the members of this House as we approach the final games of the National Hockey League, the Kenora Thistles, believe it or not, won a Stanley Cup back in 1907. Who knows, with continued prosperity and with the help of Wintario funds and a little luck, Kenora might come back into the league some day and bring the Stanley Cup back home to northern Ontario.

On motion by Mr. Blundy, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.