The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FLOOD DAMAGE

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, today my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) and senior staff of his ministry are viewing the flood areas in Field township and Springer township. On his behalf, I am outlining to you the situation as it has occurred over the last four days.

At 9 am. on Friday, April 27, Mr. Whalen, supervisor of field services, Ministry of Natural Resources, North Bay, advised the minister’s office in Toronto that the water had risen 20 inches on the Sturgeon River at Field since 6 p.m. on Thursday, April 26. At that time assistance from the ministry had not been requested. All the Ministry of Natural Resources staff in the area were alerted to have boats and equipment ready when we were called upon.

Abitibi Paper Company Limited was having problems with rising water in its powerhouse and, although not requested, our Ministry of Natural Resources staff sent over pumps to assist the company. At that time the road between Field and Sturgeon Falls was under water. About 25 families had left their homes in Field and were staying with friends or relatives.

On Saturday, April 28, Dr. N. Patenaude, reeve of Field township, requested assistance from the Ministry of Natural Resources and, on this request, the Minister of Natural Resources declared Field township a provincial flood emergency. The Ministry of Natural Resources has made available all the necessary equipment -- boats, radios and so forth -- to the township. We have been informed that about 1,200 people have been evacuated and are staying with friends and relatives in the area. Ministry of Natural Resources staff are monitoring the flood on a 24-hour basis.

On behalf of all the members of the Legislature, I wish to express the concern and sympathy of us all to the residents affected by the serious flooding that has occurred. The Minister of Natural Resources will be back in the Legislature tomorrow and will be giving a full report.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in the understandable absence of the Minister of Natural Resources?

Given the flooding to which he has just referred, which seems to have caused a total shutdown of the Abitibi mill for about four months and which apparently has virtually destroyed the lumber-based economy of the Field area, can we be sure the government will get away from its matching one-for-one program, which is obviously irrelevant in this case, and give disaster relief to this area on a three-to-one basis at the very least, such as happened in Cobalt, rather than on this matching basis?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very important question and one which will be discussed at the cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary:

Could the minister in addition give some public information with regard to Ontario Hydro holding back water at the moment on its dams upriver from Sturgeon Falls? It is our understanding that Hydro is doing so, even above the usual safety limits, in a very understandable attempt to reduce the flooding.

Can the minister advise whether that is the case and how soon it will become necessary to open those dams, since the water level is still rising? What kind of information can the minister provide with regard to the Hydro dams?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources in tomorrow’s announcement will be giving full details on that matter.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that this flooding is taking place not just in Field on the Sturgeon River, but is also taking place in Searchmont on the Goulais River and in the community of Iron Bridge on the Mississagi River, will the minister undertake now on behalf of the government to declare that all of the affected communities along the north shore that are being hit by this flooding -- in the case of Iron Bridge, it is 32 feet above the normal summer water level -- will be declared disaster relief areas in order to qualify for disaster relief?

Will the minister also undertake to establish a northern disaster relief fund that will take into account the special problems of unorganized communities in the north that in no way can come up with the kind of money for matching grants that the government requires of southern communities affected by flooding?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be pleased to take those matters under consideration.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary:

In view of the fact that Field Lumber is the only business in this community and it employs in excess of 100 people, and in view of the fact that it has suffered financial losses and damages in excess of $1 million, what is the government prepared to do to assist in the redevelopment of this industry?

Furthermore, when the government has its cabinet meeting to discuss this matter, will it consider relocating the town of Field? That was the suggestion after the flood in 1960 and nothing was done with respect to relocation at that time.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, those certainly are very important questions, and I believe they also will be taken into consideration.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister respond now or make certain the Minister of Natural Resources responds tomorrow to the accusation, I believe it was of the fire chief, to the effect that this was a man-made flood, not a natural flood, because of Hydro’s handling of the darn? It could have been handled differently in March and the flooding avoided now; that was the clear assertion of the local official.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding -- and I may be corrected on this -- that only about five per cent of the waters can be controlled by dams. However, I am not too knowledgeable in that area. The honourable member’s question will also be taken into consideration and there will be a full reply from the minister.

Mr. Conway: In view of the fact the Ottawa River is cresting or expected to crest within a day or two at very high and dangerous levels, can the minister undertake to investigate what the posture of Ontario Hydro will be with respect to water control up river from such communities as Pembroke and Fort Coulonge in the province of Quebec, which are this very weekend experiencing flood conditions?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: At the risk of repeating myself, Mr. Speaker, that also will be considered.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question about the matter of radiation at the Bruce station but with the minister absent and no one in the government apparently prepared to read a statement on the matter, I wonder if the Premier (Mr. Davis) will be here? Can the Deputy Premier tell me if the Premier will be here?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, he will be here later on.

Mr. S. Smith: Perhaps I’ll reserve my question until that time.

CHRYSLER LAYOFFS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question I would like to direct to the Deputy Premier arising out of the announcement last Friday by Chrysler Canada that they intend to lay off permanently 550 employees in their engine plant in Windsor because of low sales of V-8 engines. That plant phased out six-cylinder production a year ago. In view of the fact Chrysler Canada is making these layoffs in spite of the incentive grants it has received, can the minister say what action the government intends to take in order to save those jobs and to ensure Chrysler Canada lives up to the promises it made to the government to give Canadians a fair share of future production and jobs in the engine field under the auto pact?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It would seem appropriate that we would refer that question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) to respond. Now that we have the question on record, I’ll be glad to bring that to his attention when he returns.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: In that referral, would the minister please point out to the Minister of Industry and Tourism that following the loss of the 600 jobs by the transfer of the six-cylinder engines, all that equipment is still there and usable in the Windsor engine plant? Would he note that those jobs on the six-cylinder engines could be returned within two to six weeks at the most, restoring entirely the work force in that engine plant?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can only reiterate what I’ve already said in response to the main question. I understand that what is happening there is a production cutback which is affecting the entire continent and not just this plant. The reasons for it I’m not able to say. But I would think now that we have the question and the supplementary on the record, the honourable members could look forward to some more detailed response from the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. B. Newman: A final supplementary:

Would the minister convey to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) that the government was informed of the situation back on May 2, 1978? At that time the union and the community were concerned that the phasing out of six-cylinder-engine manufacturing was going to have a harmful effect on the employment picture in the community because they were only going to be making eight-cylinder engines. That type of engine is a thing of the past, so to speak, and the big cars are not going to be as popular as the smaller-engined cars. The government at that time said it was going to discuss this and require a greater notification from industry before the industry contemplated any drastic changes in production.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I will include that in my conversation with the minister. The officials of the ministry have been advised with respect to this softening of the North American market that some 550 persons from the engine plant in Windsor will be affected by this. At the same time some 2,100 employees in the United States will also be part of a continent-wide layoff that becomes effective on May 14. As I have already indicated, I will be very pleased to make sure the Minister of Industry and Tourism receives this information.

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question to direct to the Minister of the Environment. Can the Minister of the Environment confirm reports that the Pesticides Advisory Committee of his ministry has recommended it resume issuing permits for the use of the pesticide 2,4,5-T? Given the fact that 2,4,5-T is not only extremely toxic itself but may also be signfficantly contributing to the dioxin contamination of the Great Lakes, will the minister undertake that Ontario not issue any further permits for the use of 2,4,5-T?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think I know where that rumour started and I guess I have to accept the responsibility. To some member of the media I said that the committee has done its preliminary investigation and does not see a great problem with it. However, I do not have that in writing and I am not unconditionally sure that I will receive that kind of recommendation from the advisory committee.

Secondly, I also suggested then, and I certainly again say today, that I have, of course, not made any decision on that recommendation. Obviously, I won’t be asked to until such time as it reaches my desk. When it does, I will take into consideration the kind of comments that the leader of the third party just gave us.

I think it is fair to say that the decision by no stretch of the imagination is confirmed. I am well aware of the reasons for not continuing the present ban, and will give the matter careful consideration before any changes in the present status are made and will report to the House. I hope the member doesn’t think there is any doubt that that kind of announcement will be made here first, on a formal basis, whether it’s for or against. I am simply saying no decision at all has been made so far.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that 2,4,5-T is known to contain trace elements of dioxin, that that is inevitably present in this pesticide, can the minister explain why it is that after three years, when only 10 kilograms of 2,4,5-T were allowed to be used in Ontario, there was the use of 5,580 kilograms of the substance in agricultural and non-agricultural uses last year? In view of the dangers that we are all much more aware of, will the minister not make a commitment here, now, in this House, that the suspension of 2,4,5-T use will be permanent, and will not the government thereby make at least some small contribution to eliminate the hazards of dioxin in the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it would be unfair of me to make a positive decision on a recommendation for which I asked and which I have not yet received. I think that would be unfair to the advisory committee. Indeed, I am not sure what its report to me is going to be, and to make a commitment prior to receipt of that report would make it rather foolish to have even asked the committee to look at it.

As I have said to the member, I am more than prepared to consider those concerns and others, but surely it’s reasonable to ask that committee to formalize its report before we do anything more because, at the moment, and this is the operative point, it is banned. We can do no more than that, and if we are going to lift that ban, obviously it will have to be announced here.

Ms. Bryden: In making his decision about this pesticide, is the minister aware that Dr. Dianne Courtney, a senior scientist with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in 1974 testified before a congressional hearing that all uses of 2,4,5-T should be banned? Has he looked into that testimony?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I haven’t looked into that testimony and those are the kinds of things that we will consider. I just would ask again that the House understand the significance of asking that very competent committee -- and I think the House will agree it is a very competent committee of known experts, the very best in this province; not ministry experts, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, but experts in the scientific world who sit on our Pesticides Advisory Committee. Did I say “world”? I meant to say “Ontario”; sometimes I get expansive, but the very best of the people here in Ontario who sit on that committee and report. Surely we should give them full opportunity to consider. At that time, I am sure with their recommendation will come whatever logic they have used to arrive at that recommendation. Please don’t ask me to prejudge their recommendation. I just don’t think it fair to the scientific community of Ontario.

ALASKA PIPELINE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Is he aware of the pressure from US steel interests which may result in changes in the procurement policies for the Canadian section of the Alaska pipeline, and will the minister take action to indicate clearly this province’s opposition to reopening the pipeline contracts and to reassure the thousands of Canadian steel and electrical workers who are involved and who have, I think, reason to fear another sellout?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will have to admit that I am not personally aware of this, which is the response to the first part. Certainly I will have the Ministry of Industry and Tourism check into the concerns expressed by the honourable member and report back to the House.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Inasmuch as we have argued for Canadian content in the pipeline, can the minister give the workers at Stelco, Ipsco and the various electrical plants any more assurance that they will hold on to their jobs and that the government will do more to protect their jobs than happened in the case of the Columbus McKinnon workers in St. Catharines?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I happen to know something about what we did in so far as the Columbus McKinnon workers in St. Catharines were concerned. We don’t take a second seat to anyone with respect to our interest in trying to preserve those jobs.

Mr. Laughren: Tell us how you saved the jobs. What did you do?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that was a comment that was not really called for as part of the main question. I am quite prepared to stand up in any place in my constituency to speak in terms of what we did in so far as the Columbus McKinnon dispute was concerned.

Mr. Mackenzie: They went down the drain, all 300 of them.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As for the other matters involved, certainly I share the sentiments that have been expressed in this House by the members from the Niagara Peninsula generally with respect to this pipeline contract. As I indicated in response to the main question, I would be glad to get further information, and whatever assurances can flow from that will be given.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: I would like to ask the Deputy Premier, in view of the statements made by both the Premier and the then Minister of Industry and Tourism that they were satisfied the contracts would come to Canada for the pipeline, does he not now think he has some special obligation to pursue this matter? Will he check out the statements, which were made by the Northern Pipeline Agency, that there may be some revisions in the wording of the Foothills procurement plan and that there have been some suggestions that bids were rigged in some way to determine whether it may not be that the United States interests are twisting arms with the Foothills company and that there was not any rigging of bids before?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would like to repeat that this government stands fairly strongly on this whole question of providing employment opportunities for our people here and, perhaps unlike others, we feel that whatever action we would take should be based on fact. At the moment, I have given the assurance that we will check out the facts of the situation. I think it would be much better to act from a factual basis than from any speculation with respect to what may be happening behind the scenes.

Mr. Warner: The only thing you stand firmly on is quicksands.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Once we have the facts, and if the facts support the necessity of some strong intervention, there will be that intervention or some position will be. made quite clear.

Mr. Cassidy: What did you do about Columbus McKinnon?

Mr. Warner: Hollow words. You will not guarantee Canadian jobs.

DAY-CARE POLICY

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is it correct that the ministry has instructed day-care licensing inspectors not to reveal the names of those centres that have been found in contravention of the Day Nurseries Act and, therefore, operate on a three-month temporary licence?

Does the minister not think that parents and the public should have the opportunity to assess the quality and standards met by each centre and at least know in a clear and open way how and why the ministry attaches conditions to the licences of some centres?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have issued no such instructions to the members of my staff.

Mr. Makarchuk: Do you know whether anybody else did?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. S. Smith: Can I ask a supplementary then? Can the minister account for the fact that in Hamilton it would appear seven places are now on a three-month temporary licence, including Mini-Skools and six others, and yet when the Hamilton Spectator sought information about the names of the six it was told that this kind of information is not given out and, apparently, it is not available to parents under these circumstances?

Would the minister please correct that in Hamilton and make certain that parents are informed about which day-care centres are on a three-month licence and -- so that they be properly informed -- the reason for it, which, in some cases, may be more or less important than in others. But these parents could then make their own decision.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware that such an attempt had been made by the Hamilton Spectator, on the basis of which they were allegedly refused information. I will try to find out what happened and rectify it.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, may I ask the minister if he would simply table for the House the names of all day-care centres in the province operating on temporary licences?

Mrs. Campbell: Let the record show that the minister is nodding his head.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH CENTRES

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Since the minister has frozen the budgets of all mental health treatment centres with budgets of more than $1 million, does he realize the devastating effect of this; particularly in the case of Windsor Western Hospital Centre having to close down entirely its 12-bed residential treatment centre for adolescent boys? There is no alternative preventive program in place in Windsor to meet that need. There’s a list of 11 boys who wish to get in there and they face a long waiting period. There is a four to six-month waiting period for outpatient treatment, a length of time which is now going to grow. Where are these very disturbed boys to go when inpatient treatment is required for them?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I met recently with the executive of the Ontario Association of Children’s Mental Health Centres. I explained to them that the announcement I made represented a change which is to be phased in over a period of many months. My staff will be meeting with the affected agencies and assisting them in making the necessary adjustments in their budgets to live within the limitations they face.

I also assured them that during that period of time some $15.9 million will be available for new alternatives in the community, over and above what exist at the present time. It will be disbursed in order to ensure coordination of the development of alternatives within the community where they may not already exist and we shall do our best to work with them. In many communities alternatives do exist so there would be minimal disruption, I hope none.

There may be, in some specific cases, some minor cause for concern. We shall try to respond to that, but, I can assure the member the attempt is being made, as a result of the phasing process, to try to make sure there are no gaps in service development.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the minister saying, then, that if there are no alternative programs in force in Windsor, funding will be found for that inpatient treatment centre beyond July 1? That is the date on which it must close for financial reasons as things now stand.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear to the children’s mental health centres, and particularly those with budgets in excess of $1 million --

Mr. Bounsall: No padding in this budget.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- that the $16 million available for front-end service, or alternative community services for the children who might otherwise end up in children’s mental health centres, is available to them just as it is to any other child service agency if they present us with proposals that meet the criteria we have established. So if the agency to which the honourable member refers perceives there is a need in the community not currently being met, then we would welcome from them, as from any other agency, a proposal which we might then consider for funding out of the new initiatives.

Mr. Ruston: What assurance can the minister give us that on the closing of such a facility as this, which is serving such a great need, there is some alternative place for these people?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the honourable member that on the basis of the information I have -- and this information is not just from my own staff but in fact from persons directly engaged in the operation of children’s mental health facilities in the province -- first of all it is not our intention that children will simply be removed from those centres and, figuratively speaking, turned out on the street. Secondly, I have been informed by persons in the children’s mental health field who are engaged in day-to-day operations that in some cases -- this is not a general figure across the board I am not suggesting that -- but in some cases as many as 40 per cent of the children who are currently in residential care need not be there.

Bearing in mind that kind of information, coming from persons in the children’s mental health service area, I think it is incumbent upon us to provide the necessary support services so that those children who need not be there can remain in their homes or have alternative placement within the community. That is what we are trying to achieve.

I can assure the honourable member we will not be turning out children who are in need of care; rather we will be trying to find the most appropriate type of care for those children who, for a period of time, do need either treatment or support in the mental health field.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister how he can give assurances that children in need will not be turned away when there are already long waiting lists for the regional children’s centre, both outpatient and inpatient? He knows that, because I have written an open letter about the outpatient program.

Finally, I would like to ask the minister why these major moves are being made before the children’s services committee which has been set up in Windsor as one of the pilot projects even has the opportunity to have any input into this decision? How can the minister decide which alternatives need to be put in place in a community like Windsor at this time?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As soon as the committee is fully operative in Windsor, there will most certainly be a role for them to play in this. I am sure the honourable member himself would be critical of us in the reverse position; that is if we were doing nothing and using the explanation that we were waiting until all the children’s services committees were in place.

Mr. Cooke: There is one in Windsor and they should have input on this.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sure the honourable member is sufficiently committed to opposition that whatever we did he would be critical. All I am suggesting is that we are now moving in what I think is a positive and creative way. I expect his criticism and I welcome it. I am sure that whatever we do he will continue to be forthcoming.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, given the many instances in the past when the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services have cut back on residential care and services before the alternatives were ready in the community -- and the minister cannot say that has not been the case, it has -- given those facts is the minister going to commit himself that there will not be further cutbacks until the alternatives are in place?

Hon. Mr. Norton: At the risk of being repetitious, I would like to point out to the honourable member that, first of all to the best of my knowledge there have been no cutbacks in residential care to children in the absence of alternatives; at least as far as my ministry is concerned, I cannot speak for all other circumstances.

Furthermore, if the member has listened to and read the announcements I have made this year with respect to the funding and programming for children’s services, he will recognize that probably the largest percentage increase in any program in my ministry, and perhaps in any program in government, has been in the area of children’s services. We have managed to establish $16 million in new money for use in priority areas, which funds are precisely earmarked for the kind of thing he is concerned about.

In many communities in this province alternatives already exist. This is $16 million for new, priority expenditures, to ensure that in those areas where we are trying to curtail the growth of residential programming alternatives will be in place. It is not going to happen overnight. It will be phased in over a period of several months, both the additional alternatives and the limitation on residential growth.

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTE

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. In view of the strike of secondary school teachers in Haldimand, would the minister indicate if an exception will be made in the 100 to 120 hours per year necessary for the successful completion of a credit, as required in ministry regulations, for those students of Haldimand county who are presently out of class because of the teachers’ strike?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding the board of Haldimand county is attempting to ensure the required number of hours of instruction will be provided for those students for whom it is necessary in those schools.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given the minister’s own report of last September, which showed specifically that grade 12 and grade 13 students were most negatively affected, does she have any provision for that board, or for any such board, to give additional supplementary academic qualifications or academic training to those grades 12 and 13 students who are going to be graduating?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it would be necessary to have specific provisions under the Education Act to do that. It is my understanding the board could do that if it so desired; but I will check that to be sure.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Is the minister aware there are four schools in the area, two under the non-semester system and two under the semester system? The ones under the semester system have only completed 47 per cent of their semester for 1979; I wonder if the minister is aware of that? Also, can she tell us the position of the negotiations at this time? They broke down on April 12, which is three weeks ago, and the strike is now into its fifth week?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware, because the honourable member has told me so, that there are two schools on the semester system and two that are not. I ant also aware the Education Relations Commission is actually aware of the differences between the two groups of students and their requirements. I can assure the honourable member they are monitoring the situation in terms of the educational program of those students.

The present state is that the mediator stands ready to serve both parties. There is a mechanism for arbitration which is available to both parties at this time if they will agree to use it.

I know the Education Relations Commission is looking at this situation on a daily basis. I have had some brief communication from them, but I have not had a communication thus far on the status of the educational program.

WELFARE PAYMENTS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to ask the minister whether he’s aware that a number of municipalities, and I am aware specifically of Chatham, are cutting people off general welfare assistance on the grounds they are receiving tax rebates, both in terms of property tax and the baby bonus tax credit? I want to ask the minister, since this is exempt income under the terms of the General Welfare Assistance Act, what action he intends to take to prevent municipalities from cutting people off social assistance when they receive this exempted income?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the particular ease the honourable member cites is one that obviously causes me some concern. I might indicate, as I announced some time ago, that this is exempt as income under any of the provincial programs.

The way we have treated it under family benefits, since we as well as the municipalities are subject to the asset limits established under the Canada Assistance Plan, is that where a person receives a lump sum payment under the tax credit system we will not treat that as an asset until the end of the fiscal year in which they receive it. In my opinion, it was intended to be an annual tax credit that was to be allocated to expenditures on behalf of the children in the family, as appropriate, during the course of that year.

In my opinion the municipalities are free to make a similar kind of judgement in terms of treating that as a liquid asset. I would hope in most cases that is the way they would deal with it.

I think perhaps where they need to have some discretion is that, generally speaking, general welfare assistance is a shorter term, emergency type of assistance. It could be, for example, that an individual in receipt of the tax credits might at the same time be turning to the municipality for very short term assistance, say for one month. For example, the average length of stay of an employable person on general welfare assistance is from four to six weeks, fluctuating from time to time during the year.

I think the discretion is necessary at the municipal level in order that persons with substantial savings, or substantial bank accounts, do not seek temporary assistance unless it is really necessary.

In terms of the discretion that is exercised by this particular municipality, I would hope it is not a general policy they will follow. At this point, I have no intention of interfering with theft exercise of that discretion. As I indicated in an interview recently, we have pleaded with the federal government to try to have those tax credits spread over the year. We have been assured, following that, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will attempt to do that in subsequent years, but he felt that it was administratively impossible this year in the sense that people do receive the whole of the tax credit in one month during the year, thus creating problems under the asset guidelines of the Canada Assistance Plan.

I can only encourage the municipalities, if they are looking at it as an asset, to delay in treating it during that month and look at it at some point -- I would recommend the end of the fiscal year -- by which time one would hope it would have been expended upon the needs of the children for clothing or returning to school.

Mr. McClellan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Surely the minister realizes that what has happened in Chatham is that the municipality has, in effect, stolen the baby bonus from a social assistance mother. It is the baby bonus we are talking about which is now provided on a negative income tax basis.

My question to the minister is, does he not agree that is a violation of the General Welfare Assistance Act, since this is exempt income? Secondly, what does he intend to do to prevent municipalities from stealing family allowance cheques from social assistance recipients?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member that it is certainly debatable as to whether it is a liquid asset or income. Certainly the monthly family allowance, which is still received by individuals, is exempt. The tax credit may, in fact, be regarded as a liquid asset.

Mr. Warner: In other words, the minister will do nothing.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think that the matter will certainly be resolved in future years.

Mr. Warner: He’ll sit on the side-lines and do nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere please try to contain himself? I understand he’ll be speaking on the budget this afternoon.

Mr. Warner: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Norton: At this time I can only encourage municipalities not to be oppressive in their interpretation of it.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the government House leader. I would remind him that approximately a year ago this House concurred in a resolution by our colleague, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), advocating the prohibition of publication of opinion polls during provincial election periods. In view of the fact that there has been a proliferation of such polls during this federal election period, all of which seem to have varying results -- and there probably will be more before the campaign is over -- could the government House leader indicate to this House the position of this government with regard to future provincial elections and the prohibition of publication of opinion polls?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I must say that certain of those federal polls are very encouraging, from my point of view; I can assure you of that. Certainly there is no question that is going to make a big difference in the peninsula from which I come. But the particular question is with respect to the publication of polls at provincial election times. The government is giving very serious consideration to drafting legislation in keeping with the spirit of that resolution, although no definite decision has yet been taken.

[2:45]

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to direct a question to the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld). Will the Premier or some other member of the government be making a statement today on the accident that happened at the Bruce generating station and exposed certain workers to doses of radiation above the usual limit? In particular, can the Premier tell us whether he has been informed about the matter and whether the radiation in fact came from a broken fuel bundle that personnel were attempting to remove from the reactor? Is it correct to say that part of this bundle is still missing; or has it been recovered, and if so, can the Premier tell us where it was recovered?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really wondered whether the Leader of the Opposition was going to make the statement or was expecting one from me. It was not my intention to make a statement. I think the Leader of the Opposition was informed that the Minister of Energy is in the northern part of the province dealing with matters of concern to members on both sides of the House.

I do have a report here related to this particular incident. I could read it; it is fairly complex. Suffice it to say that two workers were exposed, as the press has indicated, to radiation levels of 5.5 rems. Putting this in perspective -- not being an expert in these areas -- I am informed this is somewhat comparable to the radiation one would receive from a series of back X-rays, and something less than if you were having an X-ray for, say, ulcers -- which the members opposite might know more about.

I think it’s fair to state that the fuelling machine containing the fuel bundle removed from the pressure tube was discharged into the spent fuel bay. The bundle was not complete. Part of it is still there inside the fuelling machine; it hasn’t been lost. Discussions are at present under way as to the best method of removing the fuel elements and it is anticipated -- they are quite hopeful -- that they will have unit one back in service this week.

While I am on my feet, I would say further, since the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter at a somewhat late period of the select committee’s discussions of the concerns all members of the House have with respect to the safety of our nuclear system, that the chairman of the committee has received from Ontario Hydro a letter which I think it would be appropriate to read to members of the House.

“Dear Mr. MacDonald:

“The select committee on Hydro affairs, at its meeting on Friday, April 21, heard testimony from Dr. Stuart Smith, at which time he also submitted certain documents relating to the operating safety of the Bruce nuclear power station” -- which documents I just happen to have a copy of here, from Mr. Schultz, dated April 16. The submissions were made, I gather, on Friday of last week.

“In response to the immediate flurry of questions from the media over the weekend, Ontario Hydro attempted to place these seven documents and the testimony in proper perspective and to refute the implications that the Bruce plant was operating under substandard safety conditions and procedures.

“Needless to say, I am particularly concerned about the misinterpretations the public may place on the significance of these events, all of which were promptly reported to the Atomic Energy Control Board” -- and then in parentheses -- “(and I include the exposure to radiation of two employees of the Bruce plant this past weekend). None of these represented any radiation risk to the public and none represented any type of emergency situation. Each of the incidents was fully investigated, as are hundreds of events each year, and corrective action taken where necessary.

“Of particular significance, in my view, is the fact that six of the seven events in question were reported in a series of quarterly reports which are in the public domain.” I would assume these are the ones the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) went down to the public library at Hydro and obtained. “The seventh, which occurred in January 1979, will be included in the first quarterly report for 1979.

“This letter confirms the position we expressed to the media during this past weekend that Ontario Hydro is not only prepared” -- and I would just add a little editorial comment here. Not only are they prepared but right from day one they have been anxious. I think we should understand that this, hopefully, is a concern felt by all members of the House. We want to see the system safe. At the same time we don’t want to see the concern exploited in a way that disturbs the public unnecessarily -- and I emphasize “unnecessarily.”

It is very important to the future of this province that we have a safe nuclear system, in terms of fact and in terms of perception. It is great to raise these issues, but I think a responsible politician has to do it in perspective and with an opportunity for some immediate discussion and immediate reply, so that the public will have some understanding, some sense of the realities.

No one in this House is more concerned about the safety of our system than is the Premier of this province. But I think we all have a responsibility to treat this unemotionally and responsibly through the committee, and the committee was in the process of doing just that. I interrupted the letter. They do say this: but is anxious to appear before the select committee as soon as possible. I believe that it is imperative that these issues, which have received extensive media coverage, be clarified and that public concerns that have been raised about the safety of our nuclear plants be resolved. In my view, this can best be accomplished in the same forum in which the original issues were raised.

“Sincerely, Robert Taylor.”

I think I am translating it accurately. I understand from our House leader that the very able chairman of the select committee is having a steering committee meeting, or whatever way it is described, later this afternoon. They will be making their assessment as to whether the committee should sit again later on this week to deal with the seven points raised rather late in the day on Friday.

I emphasize that Hydro -- and speaking for the minister, too -- have always maintained a position that they want the public to understand. From the government’s standpoint, we are as concerned about safety as anyone else, hut we feel it is important, on issues of this kind, where it is not too easy or too hard these days to stimulate public feeling -- as was demonstrated over the weekend -- that all of us treat this responsibly and, I would suggest with respect, in as fair, intelligent, logical, and as non-partisan a way as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the honourable Leader of the Opposition for a supplementary, I think everybody would agree that was more by way of a statement than an answer to a question. I will add six minutes to the question period, which will terminate at 3:13.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary to my original question, the Premier indicates, from the statement which he describes as complex -- a statement I hope he will table for us all -- that the fuel that did not come out whole is in fact still in the fuelling machine.

I wonder if the Premier would be able to table the complex report he refers to and also tell us whether anybody else was exposed to radiation and whether the workers in this operation were trained in the procedure -- whether the regular workers were trained in the procedure they undertook.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t intend to table this, but I will get a copy of it for the Leader of the Opposition. There are one or two editorial comments -- not editorial comments, rather some handwriting -- here. I think it might be typed out so that he could more readily understand it. Certainly, I would be delighted to get him I a copy of it.

Actually, nine of the 28 elements in the incomplete bundle were missing, so that assumes 19 were accounted for. Is that mathematically correct?

Mr. Cunningham: You’re from the old school.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I heard a supplementary question from the member for Wentworth?

Mr. Eaton: It was just a snide remark.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Wentworth is never snide. I would never suggest that for a moment; just most of the time.

I can’t answer the Leader of the Opposition, although from I the press reports it would appear that only two workers were involved and, as I say, at a 5.5 level. I will certainly make every effort to ascertain if there were more and what degree of experience the two who were exposed have had with this particular situation.

As I say, I hope the members opposite -- and this is not a statement -- understand that people at Ontario Hydro, though it may come as a hit of a surprise to members opposite, really are concerned about safety. They are concerned about their personnel. They do discharge their public responsibilities pretty well. I think members of this House should recall that they have a rather onerous responsibility at all times and, as public servants in the proper sense of the word, are making a genuine effort to deal with it. We, as legislators who have a responsibility, obviously, perhaps have an obligation to discharge some degree of maturity as we deal with these very difficult and sometimes controversial issues.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: While Hydro has now stated that it will make available to the select committee the documents that it requires in order to look into both these seven incidents and also the other problems that have occurred at the Bruce and Pickering power stations, is the Premier not concerned at the fact that so much of the information which has become available to the public has come through various forms of leaks, through phone calls to radio stations in the case of the radiation exposure, through leaked letters coming from people who are concerned to members of the Legislature in the case of last week’s revelations and through material going to people in the anti-nuclear movement with relation to the risks of the emergency core-cooling system not being able to do the job it was designed for?

Will the Premier undertake in future, in addition to Hydro’s revelations before the committee this coming week or in the next couple of weeks, that Hydro will have an open information policy in relation to nuclear power? Will the government also undertake that freedom of information will start to be the rule and not the exception as far as this government is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This government really is very free with information, not always by design, I admit.

Mr. Laughren: That’s for sure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As it relates to Ontario Hydro, I can’t comment on phone calls or letters that may or may not have taken place on the weekend. I do recall the member for Grey-Bruce asking, I believe the Minister of Energy, a specific question. I think the member for Grey-Bruce was invited by the Minister of Energy to attend at Ontario Hydro.

I think the facts are such that personnel at Ontario Hydro assisted the member for Grey-Bruce in giving him or showing him the documentation. Of the seven items -- the ones that have been raised here or raised on Friday -- six had been reported to the Atomic Energy Control Board and were there as part of a public record while the seventh particular situation was to be included in Hydro’s report to AECB.

I would suggest that if the chairman of the select committee feels that Ontario Hydro has not been totally forthcoming -- and certainly I’ve had no indication of this -- on these issues, I wish he would communicate that to me because my understanding or sense is that Ontario Hydro is anxious to have these matters resolved in terms of the public’s understanding and perception. It’s in their interests, it’s in everybody’s interests.

Mr. Cassidy: When Hydro is pushed to it.

Mr. Isaacs: On a point of privilege, the Premier in his previous statement referred to the member for Wentworth. I want to request that the record be corrected. The member for Wentworth was not involved in the way the Premier suggested.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry. I called him the member for Wentworth by mistake.

Mr. Speaker: That clarifies the record.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I was concerned in the Premier’s statement that he felt the review of the questions and information put forward by my leader to the committee should have gone forward without delay. Is he not aware that we specifically moved for such a discussion to take place without delay and that it was his colleagues who voted against such a discussion? We are hoping of course that it can be held later this week.

I see the chairman is discussing the matter with the House leader. Surely the Premier is aware of what happened at the meeting on Friday where we continued about five hours on related, but other matters, after my leader had put forward the material that had come into his hand the previous day.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really can’t comment on exactly what transpired on Friday. I do have a copy of the material that I presume formed the basis for the Leader of the Opposition’s observations. That material was dated April 16.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier should know before he says anything.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand the member for Grey-Bruce isn’t the most communicative person in the world and that this is the kind of information he would keep unto himself until Thursday of last week and not discuss with his leader. If that’s what the member is saying to me, I am not going to debate it.

Mr. Nixon: Then you are accepting it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am saying I am not going to debate it. If that’s what he did, fine.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the House should be aware of the fact that two things happened at the committee last Friday. One, it was agreed unanimously by the committee that the procedure henceforth was that Hydro would be asked to provide all documents with regard to nuclear safety. I repeat: all documents with regard to nuclear safety. If there are some that Hydro feels should be retained as confidential documents, we will welcome their recommendations in that connection, but the committee will make the decision as to whether they remain secret or whether they are made public. All those documents will readily be made available.

Second, the committee decided that we will be meeting as quickly as Hydro is in a position to respond to the documents that the Leader of the Opposition presented to the committee.

I received the letter the Premier has alluded to from the chairman of Hydro within the past hour. Within five minutes, I called the steering committee. It is meeting in my office after question period and, other things permitting, we will be meeting toward the end of this week to have Hydro’s response, including not only the response to the documents that were tabled, but to the incident that was reported by Mr. Schultz’s contacting a radio station in Toronto with regard to the exposure of two employees some time in the recent past.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On that point of order, I am delighted that the chairman of that select committee really has confirmed what I said about 12 minutes ago.

Mr. Nixon: On that point of order and without joining in the Premier’s delight, I hope that the chairman of the committee is prepared to confirm, or by his silence confirm, that there was a motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed), calling for the immediate discussion of these matters and that it was defeated by the Conservative members voting with the NDP members at that time.

Mr. MacDonald: On that point of order, there was a motion put forward by the member for Halton-Burlington, but it was agreed that we should get from Hydro a reasoned and full response to the documents. We couldn’t continue to sit that afternoon. We had other witnesses who were there for that period. We said we would meet as quickly as possible, and I repeat, we will be meeting, other things permitting, by the end of this week.

WATTS FROM WASTE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister tell us what is holding up the start of construction on the Watts from Waste program, which his last annual report said would start the past fiscal year? Is it stalled by buck-passing between him and the Minister of Energy or is it not proceeding because the financial assistance from the province is insufficient to enable Metro to get it under way in view of its borrowing constraints?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, it certainly isn’t being stalled because of buck-passing between the Minister of Energy and myself. I can be very sure in telling the member that. With regard to why it has not proceeded, I think both Metro and ourselves are very concerned about the tremendous escalation of costs. Quite frankly, I am not at all convinced that it’s reasonable and fair to expect that the Ministry of Energy should assume all of the increase in costs, which have been substantial.

We must discuss that aspect of the increase with Metro, and that is the purpose of the study that is now taking place. I don’t think the people of Ontario should expect to pay all of those costs. It’s something that Metro might want to contribute to some degree. We will discuss those things when we have a further report on it.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: Has the ministry undertaken an update of the economics of the project since the original 1973 study, in view of the fact that the cost of energy has escalated tremendously since then and that we are running out of landfill sites and can only replace them at tremendous cost?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, we have.

NO-SMOKING BYLAWS

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Attorney-General: In view of the fact certain municipalities have expressed concern about the status of their anti-smoking bylaws and have advocated the province pass province-wide or enabling legislation in this direction, would the Attorney General, speaking as the chief legal officer, indicate to the House whether his ministry or any other ministry of the government is contemplating compulsory legislation on a province-wide basis, or enabling legislation or, as a final resort, making available to municipalities the expertise of this ministry so they can have a model bylaw they could use which would stand up in the courts?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know of no such legislation being prepared at the present time. I assume the concerned municipalities are or will be communicating with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). I think he perhaps is in the best position to judge the need for such legislation and, in the event of a recommendation for such legislation from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member can rest assured our ministry will assist in any way possible.

PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS DISPUTE

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister now speak directly and immediately to the Provincial Schools Authority, the management bargaining agent with the Provincial Schools Authority teachers, to ensure the final salary offer of a pitiful 2.6 per cent increase is increased, bearing in mind the eight per cent arbitration award which the Hydro workers received about 10 days ago? This offer, along with the issues and concern over the serious and restrictive understaffing occurring in our provincial schools, was rejected with an 87 per cent vote by those teachers. Would the minister do this in an attempt to avoid a quickly looming strike by the 640 teachers in our corrections system and in our schools for the deaf, blind and retarded across this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I had some communication with the authority at the end of last week.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: On the restrictive staffing situation, does the minister realize that by June 30 of this year, over 40 teaching positions in our provincial schools will have been eliminated since January 1, 1978? Does she realize there are now schools with students of school age being refused education since there are no classrooms or qualified teachers and, in particular and of late, there has been the termination of the educational program and, therefore, the teaching positions, in Windsor, London, Hamilton, Toronto and Ottawa detention centres?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was not aware of the specific concern raised by the honourable member. If he would like to detail that for me, I would be most interested in looking at it.

DIAMOND SHAMROCK PLANT

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of the Environment regarding the Diamond Shamrock plant in Hamilton: Can the minister explain why it is scrubbers were not installed in this plant until well over two years after the control order called for them? I understand they were put in just this past week, and they were required two years ago. Is the Ministry of the Environment prepared to allow this plant to expand its chemical operations without an environmental protection hearing of some kind? Is the ministry aware of the difficulties this plant has created, with smells in the neighbourhood, smells described by a ministry official as like those found inside a horse barn? Is the minister prepared to make some compensation to the people in the area?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can’t tell you why it wasn’t done two years ago, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you why the scrubbers are there now. It is because the ministry staff insisted and they have taken a very positive action with that particular industry to clean up the site for the benefit of the residents who are adjacent to it.

Mr. S. Smith: A brief supplementary:

Since the control order was for 1977 and it wasn’t implemented until just last week, I am not sure why the ministry wishes to take so much pride in its performance.

In particular, however, will section 14 of the Environmental Protection Act be used to clean up this company or cause the company to compensate people in the neighbourhood who have been living with these chemical smells, and is the minister now monitoring the situation and can he tell us what the cause of these smells happens to be?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think most of that is of a technical nature, Mr. Speaker, and I will be glad to report back to the member.

WELLAND CANAL

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Premier. Could I have the Premier’s attention?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member has my undivided attention.

Mr. Swart: I would ask him if he is aware that on November 27 of this year it will be 150 years since the first ship went through the Welland Canal and there are going to be major celebrations in the municipalities along the canal? Is the Ontario government going to make any special proclamation or in any way itself commemorate this historic event?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in discussions with the very distinguished member for Brock some two or three weeks ago, where a member of my family had the very real pleasure of christening one of the new Canadian vessels on the Great Lakes system --

Mr. Foulds: A new Canadian vessel?

Hon. Mr. Davis: A new Canadian vessel. That means a vessel built in Canada for Canadians. Does the member understand what I am saying? It was built by Canadians.

Hon. Mr. Welch: At Port Weller drydock.

Hon. Mr. Davis: At Port Weller drydock. I have to say she did it very well. I should not exercise any parental pride here, but she pushed the button at the appropriate moment, the domestic champagne struck the bow of the vessel at the appropriate moment and all went very well.

Mr. Foulds: Was it Baby Duck?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was not Baby Duck on that occasion. It was rather chilly, sort of shortening the ceremonies --

Mr. Foulds: Too bad it does not shorten the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We had one of the very eminent historians from the peninsula remind us all of the 150 years of service of the Welland Canal to the economy of this province. In fact, he related to us, I would inform the honourable member, because his knowledge of the history will not be as extensive as this particular individual’s -- finished.

Mr. Swart: It will be when you are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as to the very limited capacity, and he drew some excellent comparisons between the canal then and the canal today.

And yes, Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the member for Brock I think it will be appropriate for this province in some way to be recognizing the very important role the canal has played in the economic and social life of the development of all parts of this province, particularly the riding of Brock and those others in the peninsula the canal serves.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 8, 10, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 40, 42, 45, 60, 65, 67, 74, 76, 82, 84, 87, 100, 102 and 103 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) who promised he would be here --

Mr. Bradley: The House is emptying, hurry lip.

Mr. Warner: Yes, I will wait for members to take their places. I know they are hurrying to get a cup of coffee and then come back here.

On Friday, the member for Timiskaming promised he would be here on Monday. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on Friday last when I had the opportunity to speak we began by discussing the serious cutbacks in our health care system in Ontario. The signs of erosion are quite apparent to all of us, even if some members of the House choose to ignore them. It was by fortunate coincidence that on Saturday when I was in my riding office --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder if the members who are leaving the chamber could depart quietly if they have to depart?

[3:15]

Mr. Warner: That is much better.

Mr. Gregory: No it isn’t. Now I can hear you.

Mr. Warner: I was fortunate enough to receive a letter from a constituent who had the unhappy circumstance of having to rely on the cutback services that are now existent in our health-care system. I read the letter with care. I was impressed by the depth of feeling in the letter and of the voice that was crying out for some perspective to be put on this whole serious matter. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish this afternoon to have the opportunity for all members of the assembly to hear this most descriptive letter. I will read it unedited, unabridged and ask members to listen carefully. It reads as follows:

“As a relatively young mother with three children, I was recently brought abruptly face to face with our health crisis with regard to diagnostic methods, bed shortages, and inadequate facilities for rendering not only physical protection but emotional protection for patients facing neurosurgery.

“At no point, however, could criticism be directed at the nursing and healing professionals. Their skill, concern and compassion can only be commended. The working conditions under which they strive to provide the lifesaving measures needed are abhorrent in these days of waste of taxpayers’ money on frills, trivia and nonsense.

“I, for one, believe the time has come for people such as I and others who have been through the following situations to start to speak out against the inadequacy of our system, and to improve it, where possible and necessary, for the comfort and health of very sick loved ones.

“My story deals with neurosurgery and conditions on the 4C level at St. Michael’s. I suggest a reporter with a brain tumour and an anxious family could probably bring the message across better than I; but I will give it a try.

“My husband was diagnosed as having a brain tumour. This was originally identified by a brain scan, but until the actual surgery we didn’t know for certain what we were dealing with. He spent a week in Scarborough Centenary Hospital for a workup series of tests. He had been having severe headaches for over a year. Scarborough Centenary is not equipped with CAT-scan, because of the expense involved, which could have aided in an early diagnosis of his problem. After completion of various tests at Scarborough Centenary he was moved at 11 o’clock on Sunday, December 10, by ambulance and after hours, to a hallway in the emergency ward on a stretcher, with other poor, suffering souls on stretchers.

“He was moved into an emergency examining room and examined by very caring professionals. Then the wait began again, trying to find a bed for him in the neurology section. For a long time, it seemed that he was going to be in the hallway because of the acute bed shortage. To be in a hospital hallway in any hospital is not pleasant under any circumstances, regardless of the illness. It is like being on display. But, to have a brain tumour, facing surgery, possibly the next day, and being in the hall on 4C would have been an emotional hell.

“Luckily they did have a bed for him in a public ward. Depressing is the only word to describe conditions on that floor. It seems ludicrous to me that a specialty like neurology and the patients afflicted by serious ailments requiring the services of neurosurgeons, should be subject to the conditions they are on 4C at St. Michael’s.

“The intensive ears unit is 404. To get to the pay telephone at the end of the corridor, patients awaiting surgery or recovering from surgery must pass by; and it is impossible to have the door closed most of the time because of the necessity of nurses and doctors constantly moving back and forth to provide the necessary care.

“Can one imagine the emotional fear the prospective candidate must encounter, realizing that the next day he is going to be in that room, possibly in the same agony or worse, as the occupants be now sees as he goes to the end of the corridor to wait his turn in line to phone his loved ones at home? When I had to leave my husband there Sunday night I cried, because at least at Scarborough Centenary Hospital he could walk to a lounge or down a hallway for exercise, and he could get the much-needed rest be was going to so desperately require.

“On any given day on 4C the corridors are filled with patients in beds and patients in wheelchairs, with no place to go. Ideally, the intensive care room, perhaps, should be in a special area so that patients and family are not continually brought face to face with the suffering after surgery and subsequent recuperation.

“It seems we are constantly reading and hearing about (1) doctors leaving for the States, (2) hospital beds not available for patients, (3) cutbacks in medical staff, nurses, et cetera, (4) cuts in hospital budgets. My first question is what is the most important thing in life. Some would say love; I say health. When you’re faced with cancer, as an example, loving is very painful and quite often very brief when measured against a normal life expectancy.

“It seems to me that what moneys may be saved by slashing budgets, cutting staff and beds, postponing various surgery, et cetera, may well cost more in the final analysis when families are forced to go on welfare programs because (1) a head of a household has died, leaving a spouse and children without any other alternative; (2) the emotional problems imposed on children when illness and death strike one or both parents necessitating, in many cases, psychiatric help and sometimes involving the law; (3) lost taxes because of an inability to work.

“The above are only a few areas where the monetary cost could be great. It says nothing of the fear and suffering that each family faces when a parent or child is struck with a dread disease, or is handicapped and has to rely on our doctors and hospitals for the care they need, and are entitled to, as Canadian citizens.

“We can send kids to play hockey games in Europe but we can’t find beds in many cases when an ambulance pulls up to the emergency department of our hospitals. We have all kinds of lotteries for cultural endeavours, et cetera. I suggest a quick scan of the obituary column is enough to realize all the culture in the world isn’t going to help us when our lives are shortened because research is not moving fast enough to find causes and cures for the vast number of diseases that are crippling and killing us.

“Why can’t some of this money be poured into health care in this country? Our doctors and nurses are leaving for other countries because of the restrictions we place upon them. Dentists, lawyers, politicians, et cetera, are not held up to public scrutiny fur the amount of money they make and they aren’t on call constantly at all hours, day or night, facing and dealing with death and the agony of human suffering. We don’t read or hear of the high charges of electricians or plumbers. Why are doctors constantly being dragged through the headlines? Is our health less important than our plumbing facilities?

“When the Auditor General’s report is released annually, listing the fantastic wastage of money, our money, entrusted to the government of Canada to be used on our behalf, I for one question if we aren’t all sacrificial lambs led down the road to slaughter. We work and skimp and sacrifice just to make ends meet in our households, sometimes sacrificing proper nutrition in our desperate attempts. We pay a fair share of money in sales tax, provincial tax, federal tax and municipal taxes, plus all the hidden taxes on products we purchase, and the government wastes a fair share on absolute nonsense and then uses our medical care as a convenient scapegoat.

“I’m not anti-government but I am tired of the backbone of the country, the ‘middle class’ families, being constantly dumped upon. We’re told to work harder and to stop bellyaching; in the meantime, our people are losing their pride and dignity, as they lose their jobs. When was the last time our humble leader and his colleagues walked the streets looking for reasonable-paying jobs? We’re told to spend our money on vacations in Canada while our leaders vacation in the sunny south of the US or abroad. We’re told not to demand large salary increases, while municipal politicians in one borough recently voted themselves a 50 per cent increase. We’re expected to tolerate all these various abuses and then we are supposed to sit back quietly and watch our health care system, along with our health, deteriorate.

“I’m not highly educated and I’m not a public crusader nor a writer. I’m just a terribly concerned wife and mother. Last year I had the very beginnings of cancer. One year later my husband, who is now undergoing five weeks of daily radiation treatments, has been stricken. For those people who think it will never happen to you, there is no such immunity, just as there is no guarantee that you will never require hospitalization as a result of an accident or fire, or any one of the other reasons.

“What about our children and their future? Aren’t they entitled to good health care? Don’t we owe it to them to try and fund as much research as possible to find the cures to the various diseases that are causing such agony to so many of us?

“Before people complain about increases in OHIP premiums, they should take a stroll through Princess Margaret Hospital on any weekday. Those people waiting for treatment aren’t actors from commercials, and it’s standing room only on many occasions. Or you could take a stroll up to 4C at St. Michael’s and see if that’s the kind of facilities you would want your loved ones in, should they require neurology care.

“We can, and must, do better. Our lives and the lives of our families are at stake, and the time has come for all of us to look at what is happening and speak out. It’s time to stop letting our doctors do all the work for us and to take the initiative.

“1. Educate yourself about what is happening.

“2. Speak out; discuss it with family, friends and neighbours. What do you expect with regard to health care when it is needed for yourself or your loved ones?

“3. Write your MPs and make your views known. Write your Prime Minister.

“4. Support your doctor and, if you are blessed with a good one, be grateful and hope that he stays in Canada.

“5. Pray that people can unite and accomplish an almost impossible dream, that we can stamp out some of these killing diseases and offer future generations adequate health care and, perhaps, freedom from prolonged suffering.

“I am aware that, since the writing of this letter, money has been allocated for the renovation and expansion of St. Michaels -- approximately $30 million, I believe. In the interim, though, the Etobicoke General is now feeling the acute pressures of government cutbacks in funding, resulting in elective surgery being curtailed as a means of coping with the situation.

“Quality of care must be in question when Scarborough General Hospital is threatened with a $750,000 budget cut. I wonder what a survey of hospitals would reveal if scrutinized as to the effects of financial restraints on patients and prospective patients needing care?

“There is also the feeling that all of this must be affecting the morale of nurses and doctors in the hospitals. There have to be feelings of resentment, bitterness, frustration, and perhaps the feeling of being overworked, building up. Perhaps, if left to build long enough, apathy will settle in and then we’ll really have more serious problems.

“Now, we have an increasing number of doctors opting out of the OHIP system, and I don’t personally feel that it’s all because of a desire for money. Surely doctors have the right to be compensated for the years of education needed and the money required to become a doctor, to say nothing of the enormous sacrifice of time and energy involved. They must also bear the brunt of inflation along with the rest of us; office overhead and the various expenditures required must be costly.

“I fully appreciate the fact that the government is looking for ways to save money, but I don’t believe the education of our young and the health of all of us should be the primary targets. Our taxes rise, and the most important services get cut.

“Perhaps various government agencies should smarten up; i.e., unemployment insurance. After a serious accident in 1973, I had to go three times to my family doctor for him to fill in the same form, stating I was unable to work following brain surgery, eye surgery and extensive scarring -- three office visits billed to OHIP when one should have been sufficient. Even then I didn’t begin to collect benefits until my mother, after enduring an irritating, prerecorded message for the longest time, finally managed to get through to someone to ask how they expected a bald person (my head had been shaven because of the head injuries and subsequent brain surgery) with extensive scarring, just out of hospital following major surgery, to go look for a job.

“I’m sure there are a great number of people who could relate similar asinine treatment. It must cost taxpayers a fortune just for all the forms and paperwork involved in the duplication and triplication of services, not to mention postage. We spent a fortune on computers and the latest technical knowhow, along with key personnel in most instances, and we still can’t get the system working satisfactorily.

“Six years later, after my encounter, I still have reports of unnecessary duplication. No wonder the government is crying the blues over money deficits. It doesn’t seem to have a clue what’s happening in its own agencies.

[3:30]

“The news story last week, March 15, of the gentleman who swindled the government out of a considerable sum of money just to prove how easy it was, and then returned it, certainly proved my point. It’s a shame that the people who are responsible for areas concerning our health and education have to be in Ottawa most of the time. Perhaps if Mr. Trudeau or Dennis Timbrell walked in the worn-out moccasins of the average mother, father, child, teacher or doctor they might see things a little clearer. They might better understand our fears and concerns for the present and future.

“The time has come to re-evaluate our priorities with regard to the quality of life for ourselves and those we love. We are blessed with great doctors and nurses, and our family doctor is one of the nicest. We have great personnel. How about facilities?”

It’s signed: “Mrs. Brenda Mignardi.”

There is a PS: “When there are cuts to be made, why are they in the areas where people are most vulnerable and the services most needed: health, education, protection?”

That’s the end of the letter.

I don’t think any member of the assembly could put forward the frustration any better than that woman has. I spoke with the constituent for some time on Saturday and it was evident to me she had gone through a personal ordeal which had left her wondering what on earth has happened to our priorities down here. I had to say to her:

“I don’t understand what the government is doing.”

This isn’t a poor province. We’re not destitute. Any day of the week this government can find money for Judy LaMarsh or anybody else who wants to carry on a silly episode out there. We can find money for that --

Mr. Ziemba: Or Minaki Lodge.

Mr. Warner: -- but can we find money to maintain a good health-care system? This government says no. This government says it is quite content to have people in hallways and on stretchers. That’s absolutely wrong. And as long as I’m alive, whether I’m in this House or not, I’ll damn well fight every one of those hospital cuts. I’ll fight every time this government wants to cut back on health care.

I’m proud to say I have been a part of the New Democratic Party movement in this country for quite a few years and I know it was the CCF that dragged this government kicking and screaming into public health care. I’ll not back down from the fight, not one inch.

I leave it on the conscience of every one of these cabinet ministers, as they sit around a table deciding whether or not to give Judy LaMarsh or anybody else $500 a day to do something foolish, as to what kind of effect they’re having on the health care of our citizens. I leave it on their consciences. In the meantime, the people of Ontario will voice their opinions at the ballot box. Make no mistake about it, this serious attack on the health-care system will be taken up by the people of Ontario. They are not going to stand idly by.

What do the honourable members think it is that drives an average, law-abiding citizen like my constituent to write such a lengthy letter? She told me on the phone she’s not a publicity seeker. She’s not crusading. She’s simply voicing her dismay at what this government has done to our health-care system. What’s sad about it is that there isn’t a single sign the government can solve the problem or is even willing to.

Why are doctors leaving this country? It is not just money. Surely no one in this House is foolish enough to suggest that it is money. Of course, they would like a raise in pay. Most hard-working people do. But they have had it with tile bureaucratic harassment they get from this government.

In an age of technology, should it take six weeks, eight weeks, 10 weeks to process a claim? There is absolutely no way that should occur, but it does. This government seems incapable of running a computer system, let alone a health-care system. The doctors have complaints. Many of them are legitimate in my view. Surely this government is able to resolve those complaints. But it can’t even negotiate a contract in good faith. Talk to the doctors about that as I did.

I met with Dr. Moran of the Ontario Medical Association. Sure we have a philosophical difference about health care. We cleared that one first. What was evident to me was that this government has no intention of bargaining in good faith with these doctors.

One could argue that doctors don’t have a very powerful union. No union would put up with bad faith bargaining as the doctors have. I asked Dr. Moran, “Do you have an objection to negotiating a multi-year contract over fees, linking them into the utilization rate for the province of Ontario?” The answer was “no.”

“Well, why haven’t you done that with the government?”

“The government hasn’t shown any interest in doing that.”

Yet that was the very suggestion that came out of the health-care report -- the select committee report. It was precisely what that three-party committee had recommended unanimously. But our respected Health minister thumbs his nose at that and, in the process, alienates the doctors. How on earth can the minister expect to reach any resolution of the problem when all he does is alienate the doctors?

On the matter of hospital cuts, I defy any member of this House to go through a hospital and tell me where the fat is. I have been through two hospitals now and I will go through another 100, if that is what it takes. I spent eight hours over at the Northwestern General Hospital and another eight hours at the Scarborough General Hospital. I toured the facilities, met and talked with doctors, nurses and administrators. There is no fat left to cut out. If there was any before, it’s not there now and what you are cutting out are essential services. That is where the government is cutting now. No one could make crueler cuts than that. If there is some member of this assembly who can show I am wrong, let him stand in his place and give me the proof.

I guess the most disturbing part about it to me, and I would welcome a speech from the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), is that I don’t believe this government is committed to a public health-care system. I don’t believe that. I think they view it as some sort of insured service, the buying of insurance, the way you do for your car or your house or your pair of glasses. You buy insurance.

This is an essential element of a civilized society -- health care -- not something that is available to the highest buyer. I am sorry, but running a health-care system is not like running a Mr. Submarine. When we reduce ourselves to that, then this government had better get out; just leave quietly in disgrace. I could go on at some length about hospitals and doctors. There isn’t anything that disturbs me more, because I cannot believe a government has any less responsibility than to provide the very best health care possible for every citizen, not just to those who can afford it. If this government chooses not to do that, then I stand in opposition to this government and won’t back down.

I’d like to talk for a few moments about something else that’s related to that and that’s nursing homes. It’s evident now, particularly after the CBC program a week ago Friday called the Kowalski-Loeb Report, in which I had the pleasure of briefly participating, that we need a public inquiry into the nursing homes in Ontario.

I think the most telling comment in the report wasn’t by me but by Mr. Kowalski, who did the program. I had made die accusation, and I make it again, that this government, particularly the Minister of Health, covers up what he knows and he does it because of pressure exerted on him, pressure by the nursing-home association. He knows full well of the severe problems in nursing homes and he chooses to hide his head. He knows, based on recommendations he has received, that certain nursing homes should have their licences revoked or alternatively severe fines levied. He chooses not to do that.

What was interesting on the program is that after I had made the accusation, Mr. Kowalski said, “And our research shows that Mr. Warner is right.” I’m not the only one. I’ve never been the only voice in this House fighting to have the problem of nursing homes unearthed. My good colleagues, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) and the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), have also been pushing to have the facts revealed. Now the coroner, Dr. Cass, following the inquest into the death of Mrs. Edythe Gramshaw from St. Raphael’s home in Yorkville, and again on the television program, calls for a public inquiry into nursing homes. It is inconceivable to the coroner that the horrible conditions he discovered in St. Raphael’s home are not duplicated elsewhere in the province.

If it is difficult to obtain in a coroner’s inquest the documents needed from the Ministry of Health, then it must be equally difficult to obtain documents on other homes. Only under threat of subpoena could he gain the documents he needed for the inquest. I’ve never been able to obtain the documents we need -- that is the original nursing-home inspection reports, not a Mickey Mouse summary. We want the actual reports with the recommendations written down by a senior official in the inspection branch as to what should be done with that home under those conditions.

Remember St. Raphael’s at the time? There were some 67 violations of the Nursing Homes Act, many of those serious enough to put many residents in peril of their life. What was done? Nothing. There was a little slap on the wrist, a suggestion to the owner he should clean it up, take care of the problems. Was there any punishment for his crime? None whatsoever. Does he know the Nursing Homes Act? Of course he does. He’s supposed to meet all the standards before he gets his licence in the first place. When he breaks those standards, doesn’t it follow that there should be some punishment or even a modest fine? No, not a thing. Then to compound it, the minister has the nerve to bring in a report which suggests the fine should be increased from a $1,000 to $10,000, when they’ve never levied a single fine. He might as well make it $1 million if he doesn’t intend to prosecute. There also have been no revocations in the last couple of years -- not since 1972.

[3:45]

A public inquiry is essential because only with a public inquiry are we going to get to the bottom of this mess. The Minister of Health chooses to ignore the problem. He chooses to bury the papers. The nursing-home association, of course, has its own vested interest. Yet when they came before us on the select committee on health-care costs and I asked them directly they said, “Yes, we would co-operate in an investigation of the nursing homes in Ontario.”

They believe most of the homes don’t have any problems and have nothing to hide. Some homes are not operating properly and they admit that. They will co-operate with an investigation and yet the minister staunchly refuses to have an investigation. He is derelict in his duties; I would remove him from office tomorrow.

I would like to speak briefly about food prices. We have debated the issue of food prices in this assembly off and on for quite a long time and government chooses of course not to take what is the most direct action that’s needed. That’s a food prices review board with the power to roll back unjustified food prices.

In a recent survey I conducted in my riding I asked the following question and here are the answers. The rise in food prices is reasonable -- that was the question. Yes, 9.9 per cent; undecided 3.6 per cent; no, 86.5 per cent. Almost 87 per cent of the 500 people who responded said the increases in food prices are not reasonable.

Second, the main cause for higher food prices. Do members know what most people felt was the main cause for the higher food prices? Increased profits by the middleman-wholesaler, 28.2 per cent. Then followed increased profits by the supermarkets, 21.5 per cent; less Canadian and more imported produce, 18.4 per cent; and the drop in the value of the Canadian dollar, 17.1 per cent. Down at the bottom of the list contrary to the myth promulgated by the government, 12 per cent said higher wages to employees and 1.9 per cent said increased profits by the farmer.

This is an urban riding I represent, although I do have the votes of every farmer in the riding. But these are city people talking out to the government and saying, “We don’t believe the farmers are getting more money; we don’t even believe the employees are getting a lot more money; but it’s the middlemen, the wholesalers, the supermarkets.”

I believe they are right. If they are not, surely it’s the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) or of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) to prove otherwise. We have never had any proof in this assembly the supermarkets and the middlemen aren’t ripping us off. Not once have we had a shred of evidence. So perhaps the government should show us.

I might as well read the little note I sent back to everyone on food prices. It says: “I believe that there are three major initiatives needed: legislative protection for prime agricultural land, elimination of unfair trade practices in the food industry and a food prices review board with the power to roll back unjustified price increases. The present government has never been willing to take any of the above initiatives. As the Conservatives sit and watch, our food prices increase dramatically and our farmers go out of business. Changes are needed.” I will stand by that.

There is another area I would like to talk about. It is an area this government has consistently neglected. Interestingly enough, one would expect from the mythical background of their philosophic bent that it would be an area they would automatically respond to. I believe it is an area that would help the serious economic structural problem we have in Ontario and which hasn’t been tapped, that is, small business.

I had the opportunity last summer to put together a five-page document entitled, Small Business and the Economy. I took this paper and hand-delivered it to small businesses throughout my riding. I bad a fascinating response to that. I had a lot of small businessmen say to me basically two things: “Yes, we agree with you. Small business, when assisted properly, can assist the economy in Ontario, but we have never had that chance. Those large corporations cause problems for us and this government doesn’t appear to do anything about it.” Secondly, they said: “We were surprised that the NDP was so interested in small business.”

Mr. Nixon: It is incredible.

Mr. Warner: It would be incredible to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, but it is not incredible to the small businessmen in my riding.

Mr. Nixon: They don’t trust you. They think you want to nationalize them.

Mr. Warner: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is an old saying which the member would know about.

Mr. Nixon: You have been saying you are going to nationalize for long enough, but you haven’t.

Mr. Warner: Could I just give the member a little information here?

Mr. Watson: When does a small business become a multinational?

Mr. Warner: This is a fascinating crosscurrent, but perhaps I could return to the subject so that I don’t have to do a lot of cut and paste. During its term of office in British Columbia, the NDP government reduced the provincial corporate income tax rate for small firms from 12 per cent to 10 per cent and introduced for the first time a distinction between small firms and big business that allowed small businesses to pay a lower rate.

Mr. Nixon: They had the biggest deficit in the province’s history.

Mr. Watson: Tell us about the insurance industry.

Mr. Warner: In Saskatchewan, an extensive small business counselling program has been taken advantage of by over 10 per cent of the businesses in the province. This program is combined with a system of loans to new businesses, with ongoing access to technical and managerial advice, through the Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation, to provide assistance in the crucial start-up phase.

As well, Saskatchewan has provided a whole series of subsidies under the main street program to allow small businessmen, especially in rural Saskatchewan, to refurbish their premises and revitalize the downtown areas of many small towns. This program has not been in operation for very long, but there are already indications that it is successful in giving people a reason to stay in the small towns and preserve the fabric of rural life.

Through these programs, Saskatchewan has acknowledged how important the contribution of small business is to that fabric. A similar program was instituted in Manitoba when our party was the government.

I could go on, but the point is that every time there has been an NDP government. important essential programs to assist small business have always been introduced and have always been successful. This party has always had a very strong commitment to small business.

The Deputy Speaker, who is leaving the chair, will recall that there was a private member’s bill brought in -- I think it was the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), but a member of the Liberal caucus --

Mr. Nixon: You think! It is the famous bill introduced by the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. Warner: The bill was famous; not the member.

Mr. Nixon: Both are highly regarded by knowledgeable economists.

Mr. Warner: What happened to that bill? The bill never went anywhere. I suppose the member for Victoria-Haliburton probably would say that is fine provided we have something in its place in the form of a government bill, but we do not have that either. There is no substantial indication from the government of this province that it is interested in assisting small business.

I had some minor complaints with the bill introduced by the member for Victoria-Haliburton but, basically, it was a good bill. There is no reason that kind of idea could not be adopted. Why not put some restrictions on government purchasing to guarantee small business it is going to get its portion of the business dealings? This government is not interested. Our party certainly is.

The last thing I wish to touch on is our housing crisis. Quite a few disturbing things have occurred in the last while. First of all, there was the government’s announcement to the council of Metropolitan Toronto that this government no longer intends to be involved in housing. That is a very disturbing kind of comment. This government or any other government has a responsibility towards the production of housing and towards trying to stabilize the housing market. I gather it is in keeping with the wishes of the present Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), who announced at the beginning that he did not want a Ministry of Housing. He wants to get rid of it and he is doing a good job of it. His announcement the other day certainly served notice that the Ontario Housing Corporation intends to dump its stock on to the municipality and let them manage it. I would imagine, parallel to what they have done in other fields, that it means the municipality picks up the cost as well.

That aside, this government has a responsibility to try to maintain some sense in land prices. That can be done in many ways. Certainly it can be done through land banking. But if it is going to be done that way, surely it has to be followed up. The Malvern experiment is becoming a disaster. That land, as the Acting Speaker, the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth), will likely recall, was first set aside following the Second World War; 1945 was when they began to bank land up in the Malvern area.

One would expect, if land was banked in 1945, that in 1979 the houses should be a bargain. But they are not. Yes, it is cheap to get in; it requires a low down payment. But after five years the mortgage opens up, back to conventional rates, on the assumption that in the interim the person who bought the house will have a rise in income sufficient to meet the higher mortgage costs after the five years.

[4:00]

Well, someone forgot about the Anti-Inflation Board. Most of those people who bought homes in Malvern are average citizens whose incomes range between $12,000 and $15,000 a year. In today’s inflationary times how does someone in that income range meet the sudden lump of mortgage interest payments when the five years have expired? That person has been under the Anti-Inflation Board -- not a professional, not a lawyer, not the kind of person who wasn’t affected by the AIB, like our infamous friend from Inco who received a $100,000 increase in his salary during the AIB period.

These are average working people, and when those five years are up some of those people are going to be forced out of their homes. We could do a couple of things, and I’ll put forward a suggestion to the government. I am suggesting that they can peg the mortgage interest rate at eight per cent, or eight and a quarter per cent, or even eight and a half per cent for first mortgages on houses, The government can do that. It has the vehicle available: the Credit Union League of Ontario. From my previous conversations with them -- and I recall having met with a group of their directors a while back

-- they would be more than willing to render as a service the transfer of money from the international market to the house mortgage market at cost. The estimate would be a quarter of a percentage point for bookkeeping costs.

If this government gets money -- and it has a triple-A rating that it brags about all the time -- from New York at eight per cent it could turn it over through the credit unions for eight and a quarter per cent for house mortgages. Everyone sits here and scratches his head and wonders why the government wouldn’t do that. It seems so reasonable. I’ll tell you why, Mr. Speaker; because it interferes with the banks and the trust companies who make money hand over fist, unconscionable amounts, with no responsibility towards housing.

The government is not going to reverse that unless it takes housing on as a social responsibility. If it does, then it will amend the act in Ontario; because the credit unions are precluded from doing that by statute. The government should amend the act so the credit unions can be involved and it should make sure that home owners can get eight and one-quarter per cent or eight and one-half per cent mortgages. It can be done. This government chooses not to do it.

Mr. Nixon: That sounds like socialism.

Mr. Warner: Oh, the woeful pressures of Bay Street.

Mr. Makarchuk: We did it in Brantford.

We built houses for $32,000.

Mr. Nixon: Marvellous houses.

Mr. Warner: Did you build one for him?

Mr. Makarchuk: No. He never had to buy houses --

Mr. Nixon: When I hear the member for Brantford talking about hard times I weep for him. He just got back from a cruise on his blooming yacht.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: You fellows have just contributed to more cut and paste.

Mr. Nixon: Send it all out; your mother will like it.

Mr. Warner: What is tied in with it, of course, are the property taxes. That is the other problem, the other barrier which home owners face and, of course, which tenants face as well, property taxes. This government made a deliberate decision a year ago that it would shift the taxes from here to the municipalities and back on to the property tax. As it cuts back in service, it transfers that to the municipalities. The taxes go up, and there is only one place to get the money: the property tax.

We watched it in education. In Metropolitan Toronto the government of Ontario has cut back its contribution from approximately 34.2 per cent to 23.8 per cent, a drop of more than 10 per cent over the last two years. There is only one place where that shortfall will be made up, and that is in the local taxes. So the taxes in Scarborough, Etobicoke, North York and so on will increase because this government has cut back in its contribution to education.

Similarly, we will find it in services. It is a terrific ploy. As the government cuts back in services and shifts the cost to the municipalities, when the property taxes go up people are going to complain to their local aldermen. They are not going to complain to the members of the assembly. They will complain to the local aldermen, who they feel are responsible for the taxes going up. They are the unfortunate victims of the misguided policies of this government.

It is this government that is causing that rise in property taxes, and it had better find a way to solve the problem.

Mr. Watson: This government doesn’t set those rates; the municipalities set their own rates.

Mr. Warner: In order to allow other members to participate in the budget debate, I will skip over the details of the serious cutbacks in the day-care program which exist in my area, as well as the educational cutbacks and the serious problem we have with the ownership of our own economy.

We do not own our own economy any more. The Speaker is aware of that It is directed by forces outside of this province; and that is where the profits go every year. We can argue about the level of taxation that should apply to corporations. But what is the point in having any tax at all if the profits just drain out of this province day by day?

There are a lot of answers to the problem, a lot of good solid answers. But this government is not prepared to take them. Are they prepared to start repatriating the economy here in Ontario? Not a chance. Are they prepared to enter into joint ventures with corporations to develop our secondary industries, to begin producing the machinery for the mines, or the machinery for the forests? Not likely. They have had 34 years and they have never indicated they wanted to do that. And if they had another 34 years, God forbid, they would not do it either.

We watch our economy dissipate in terms of control.

Mr. Watson: Where would you start?

Mr. Warner: Control south of here. And I mean south of Bay Street.

Mr. Watson: You’d sooner live south of here, would you?

Mr. Warner: No. I like it here, I say to the member for Chatham-Kent. I like it here in Ontario. But does my friend know what I would like even better? An Ontario that has control over its own economy. That is what I would like. And we do not have it. It is controlled by Wall Street and these other magnates --

Mr. Ziemba: Corporate creeps.

Mr. Warner: Magnates or maggots -- whichever way you wish to describe them.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, once and for all we have to put to rest the silly argument that you have to trade off protection of the environment with protection of jobs. That is sheer nonsense. We can protect the environment in Ontario and create jobs. There is not a member in this assembly who does not realize that.

We can establish the proper kind of criteria for air and water pollution, and in so doing we know we are going to have to create machinery to do that. Why would we not build that machinery here in Ontario and actually foster a brand-new industry, which would be owned and operated by people in Ontario and which would create jobs for people who live in Ontario? In the long run, we not only support the economy in terms of more jobs but we also protect our environment; we have clean air and water.

It would not matter if the empty seats on the government side were filled, Mr. Speaker. I might as well speak to a blank wail.

I have enjoyed the opportunity of bringing forward my comments and frustrations in this budget debate. I do not have confidence in this government. That is reflected in the budget which was put before us. That budget was a portrait of abject failure. We’ll have an election some day -- it won’t be that far off -- and the people of Ontario may decide once and for all that the failures will be out on the street and that there will be a new government committed to health care, committed to developing the economy and committed to getting people back to work -- and that’s the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I’ll give you a hand.

Mr. Watson: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to participate in this debate this afternoon. I should take some exception, I suppose, to the thoughts expressed by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. Actually, his recent comments remind me a great deal of the minister who was holding forth and kept saying “In conclusion and “Finally and “Lastly.” And he lasted and lasted and lasted and lasted.

It is a matter of personal pleasure for me to debate this budget this afternoon. It happens to be exactly six months ago today since I took my seat in this Legislature. I feel much more at home today than I did six months ago. At the first opportunity I had to speak on last year’s budget, I said that people here had made me feel at home. I haven’t changed my thoughts about that. I do appreciate the welcome that has been afforded me by members on this side of the House and by members opposite. Although once in a while they take me to task, for the most part they have been very kind.

I do want to say a word or two about things in my own riding and to provide an update at the present time. The disaster fund in Dover township is well under way. I understand that some $40,000 has been raised. Although those opposite would complain about the way in which the disaster fund in this province operates, I happen to think that a dollar-for-dollar system just isn’t too bad. A system of going and handing out money on the basis of every time there is some kind of a disaster just wouldn’t be fair. After all, if it’s your house that gets flooded, it’s a disaster, no matter the number of houses that there are or the number of personal losses.

I would like to congratulate the government on the actions it took following the Dover township flood, By the time I went home on the Thursday following the flood, emergency work on municipal drains had been approved without the final report of an engineer because that work had to be done. We had a commitment from the Minister of Correctional Service (Mr. Walker) to provide inmates to help in the cleanup. It finally dried up enough last week, I’d like to report, that they were out for a couple of days. If it hadn’t rained this morning, they would have been back. There is a massive cleanup of the 8,000 acres that were flooded. One never knows where one is going to find a pop bottle or whisky bottle or something of that nature, and they’re going for that.

A committee was appointed to investigate what happened with regard to the events before and after, and its report is due any day. The disaster relief fund is under way. All of that was done by the Thursday following the flood. It was maybe for a little bit of press, but it was after the fact when the Leader of the Opposition arrived on Friday and said he was going to ask a lot of questions. He said he had never heard of the fact that the dikes had ever been asked for additional funding, which of course was stretching the truth just a little bit.

I want to say a word about the disaster fund. I attended a concert one night in Chatham which the singers Murray McLaughlan and Dan Hill put on. The net proceeds from that concert were $10,300. This amount is being matched by the provincial government to give another $10,300 to that particular fund.

[4:15]

Dealing with the budget specifically, this year our gross provincial product will break through the $100 billion mark, an achievement that marks many years of careful planning and steady progress. That planning process continues today and, out of it, has emerged my government’s economic policy.

Ontario’s economic policy has identified five basic economic priorities. The first is the introduction of incentives to speed the integration of a rapidly growing and highly educated work force into productive employment. Another basic priority recognizes the need to continue making progress towards reducing the underlying rate of inflation in Canada, a target that is really the joint responsibility of all Canadian governments. We certainly all want to see inflation cut down. It tends to be a global affair, but we feel Ontario is doing its share and, in fact, more than its share.

Mr. Ziemba: You’re doing nothing.

Mr. Watson: Another is encouragement of a more integrated national economy within Canada, Indeed, many of Ontario’s proposals at the first ministers’ conference adopted a distinctly national rather than provincial, perspective on this matter. Our fourth priority is to maximize the flow of domestic savings into equity support for Canadian enterprises. Our fifth priority is to improve marketing capabilities and initiatives in order to gain access to foreign markets.

Those priorities are large undertakings alone. Yet, in addition to talking about such things as the Employment Development Fund this afternoon, I would also like to spend a few moments on the other aspects of Ontario’s budget, such as a continuing commitment to a balanced budget and our desire to maintain the quality of social services in this province.

One of the difficulties any Treasurer is confronted with is the natural conflict between consuming too many tax dollars on the one hand and failing to provide sufficient funds to discharge the legitimate expenses of government on the other. It seems to me that our current budget is very much in tune with the current social and economic realities. It continues to provide enriched levels of funding to the vital social service programs while remaining faithful to the need for expenditure constraint. The Treasurer’s budget calls for total provincial spending in 1979-80 of $15,558,000,000, an increase of 7.4 per cent over the previous year.

If one sets aside the one-time $200 million earmarked for the Employment Development Fund, one can see that regular spending is increasing by six per cent this year, down from last year’s 6.9 per cent and very much reduced from the spending increases of only a few years ago. Last year alone, spending came in at $73 million below estimates and, in fact, a saving of $1.3 billion has been made through program constraints and under-spending during the past three years. Of this amount, some $300 million was held as net savings that were realized by holding spending below the appropriated estimates.

That legacy of expenditure constraint is one left by the former member for Chatham-Kent and, as I said, I am very proud to be in this Legislature and to replace Darcy McKeough, who was really the architect.

Mr. Nixon: Whatever happened to him?

Mr. Watson: Darcy is well. I don’t know how many companies he is a director of now; I’ve kind of lost track. But he’s still there and he’s still a Tory and I expect he will be for a long time.

Mr. Nixon: That’s a surprise.

Mr. Ruston: He doesn’t like Joe Clark, though.

Mr. Watson: Oh, yes. Joe pays a lot of attention to him.

Mr. Nixon: He’s voting for Trudeau.

Mr. Watson: On March 1, 1975, the size of the Ontario public service stood at 87,109, 2.3 per cent of the labour force.

Mr. Nixon: Shame.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What?

Mr. Watson: By December 31, 1978, the government had succeeded in reducing that number to 83,323 or 2.0 per cent.

Mr. Nixon: They put the remainder on contract.

Mr. G. I. Miller: You’re cutting out the Indians and leaving the chiefs -- that’s the big problem.

Mr. Watson: Yes, I used to work for them too and you would think that with all the influence I had I could get a replacement in Kent county.

Mr. Nixon: That was easy money.

Mr. Watson: I haven’t even been able to successfully get a replacement for my position in Kent county up until last week and they hired some summer help for that.

Mr. Grande: Maybe you should retire.

Mr. Watson: Maybe I should. The Ontario Youth Employment Program is of interest to me. This budget has committed a little over $79 million directly for job creation for youth. These moneys will go to creating some expected 70,000 jobs this year for young people in Ontario. Specifically, these jobs will be administered through six basic programs. The one of which I am most knowledgeable is OYEP, the Ontario Youth Employment Program.

Though the program is relatively new -- it is on its third year -- it is going great. Last year when it started it had to be cut off because of the limiting of funding. The aim is to encourage private industry, especially business and farmers, to provide summer jobs for young people between the ages of 15 and 24.

Mr. Grande: Below the minimum wage, I may add.

Mr. Watson: Under the program the employer will receive $1.25 an hour from the government towards the student’s wage, which, if my calculations are correct, is at least $3 if the student is over 18 and at least $2.15 if younger.

Last year the subsidy was increased from $1.20 to $1.25. This year there are also some changes which we think are for the better. Employers can now apply for 150 weeks of employment at each business location, regardless of the number of positions created. This ruling differs from previous years, when the employer was restricted to six positions at each business location, even if the duration lasted only six or seven weeks.

The effect of the new rule allows employers to create new work for as little as six weeks, the minimum requirement, and apply for up to 25 employees for that period. There will be situations where this will be of benefit, thus creating more work.

The whole object of the program is twofold -- to benefit both employers and the province’s youth by reducing the cost of summer labour to Ontario’s farm and business enterprises, while at the same time providing youth with valuable work experience, skills, contracts, references, which will better equip them for full-time participation in the labour force.

I would like to touch on some of the other aspects of our youth program as outlined in the budget. They run all the way from the special summer employment program known as Experience ‘79, which is in its seventh summer and provides well over 13,000 jobs, to the career action programs, both in industry and in government, which together provide another 6,000 jobs.

The career programs are geared to young people who have left school before graduating. I think these programs are excellent in their attempt to develop marketable work experience so that the young person can confidently answer in his or her first interview; “Yes, I do have some work-related experience.”

I think the members of this House are aware that this government is doing its utmost to expand employment opportunities for youth. One important factor has to be kept in mind, and that is, the jobs that we create must be productive and secure ones and they must be created where there is the greatest need. We do not need, nor can we afford, an extensive battery of temporary make-work projects sponsored by this government.

In this respect, it is somewhat ironic that right at this very moment machines may be lying idle because there is no one to operate them. I think the Treasurer’s proposal that later this year the province will announce a new program to assist employers directly to hire and train young people in areas of critical skills shortages is an apt one, and one in which I am positive both labour and industry leaders will co-operate with each other and with the government to see this through.

This is particularly noticeable in our area. We are anticipating a great many more jobs created in the southwest due to the Ford involvement and the expansion there. There is a real fear by some of the industries in my riding that some of their skilled help may be siphoned off to the bigger industries in Windsor and they’ll be left without the help. I think we have some obligation to get our new apprenticeship program off the ground to get these job creation programs that will create work for our youth moving.

After the evening in which this budget was presented to the Legislature, I heard various remarks by members opposite to the effect that it was a do-nothing budget, one that was bland and lacking in creative new social-program development. Of course, any comment on the budget is likely to be tempered by perspectives and biases and sometimes I guess those are gained by where we happen to sit in this House. However, I hope I can say without bias that from an economic perspective, this budget does seem to accomplish a great deal.

The main and obvious thrust of the budget is steadfast and aggressive support for private industry in its attempt to encourage positive growth within the private sector. I am glad to see such a firm commitment to both increasing employment opportunities as well as our assured provincial tax base.

I am here, as I stated before in this House, a Conservative by choice. The free enterprise factor of this party is one of the things that influenced me in running for this particular government. The government of Ontario, like all governments, finds itself limited by a finite number of dollars available to effect stimulation of our economy. In light of this fact, some difficult decisions had to be made about which industries or sectors of the economy would be beneficiaries of the money made available through the Employment Development Fund.

I consider the decision reached by the government was a sound one. We have decided to stimulate selectively industries in Ontario which have in the past and will continue in the future to be sources of economic strength and employment opportunity. The automobile assembly and auto parts manufacturing industries are an example. I think we, as a government, can be proud of the results of the $26-million investment in the new Ford plant at Windsor, and the 2,700 direct jobs or the 7,000 direct and indirect jobs it will create in the Windsor area.

As a bonus, Ford has decided to build a $150 million aluminum casting plant there at no cost whatsoever to the government. I get a little bit amused at the present federal campaign when this matter is discussed and those from the NDP say they wouldn’t have done it there. I’m sure they have a lot of people who voted for them in southwestern Ontario who don’t agree with their particular policy at the present time. If they had their way, we would not have had the Ford plant which we helped to build or the Ford aluminum casting plant in Ontario.

Mr. Grande: Why don’t you speak for those Tories who voted for you and don’t believe it?

Mr. Watson: Well, if the member’s people had their way, we just wouldn’t have it, and we happen to think it’s a boon in our particular part of the province.

The pulp and paper industry is another source of economic strength in employment, especially for those people in northern Ontario. The business cycle of that industry is of an erratic nature. The government of Ontario is prepared to make available to the industry financial opportunities to help them upgrade their processing and pollution abatement facilities. It makes good common sense to assist this industry when after a number of financially bad years they are beginning to show profits for upgrading their processes. We are competitive in the world market place and we must remain so. Our investment guarantees a minimum of $400 million in new investment in the industry. This investment will help to maintain and enhance the approximately 78,000 jobs that are created by the pulp and paper industry in this province.

[4:30]

The establishment of the Employment Development Fund is an important initiative by the government. It is an indication of the government’s flexibility to combine short-range and long-range planning which will result in a progressive stable development of the Ontario economy in the years to come. The fund will help to create employment and assist in the development of skills necessary for the jobs created in the industry. Ultimately it will help us to increase our exports and decrease our imports.

While incentives to such industries as automotive and pulp and paper manufacturing will be financed through the Employment Development Fund, there are limits to the use of this channel. Other key areas of our economy require alternative encouragement. The mining industry in northern Ontario is one of those industries.

I would like to mention a few other things about the budget that are of concern to me. One is the continued concessions to the hospitality industry. This is of particular importance to those of us in southwestern Ontario where we have so many tourists crossing the border either at Detroit or at Sarnia. With our current devalued dollar and our current adequacy of fuel, it is an encouragement for these people from the United States to come into our province.

With regard to things in the budget that are of specific interest to me, I want to mention the dropping of the gift tax regulations and the removal of the succession duties as they affect people in my riding. Over the past few years --

Mr. Grande: Do you benefit from that?

Mr. Watson: No, I don’t benefit from it but there are a lot of people who do benefit from it.

A lot of people in the Chatham-Kent area have become, if I can use the expression, millionaires -- not because of themselves but really in spite of themselves, because of what inflation has done to the price of land.

Mr. Nixon: How did Darcy get to be a millionaire?

Mr. Watson: I didn’t know he was.

Mr. Grande: How do you represent that riding well, then?

Mr. Watson: The problems of transferring farms from one generation to the next or of giving farms by one generation to the next had been primarily solved through the concessions made to the farming industry with regard to a 10-year forgivable program for succession duties, But the gift tax exemptions in Ontario for farming at $75,000 got to the point where it really wasn’t enough when you tried to transfer a farm from a father to son. After all, the people who are in this situation are in the position of being taxed on their capital gains.

The capital gains tax on land in my riding started at values of up to $1,000 an acre in 1971 but most of them were at $600 an acre or thereabouts. Compare that today with land at $3,000 or $4,000 an acre. The capital gains tax, if they want to sell that land, takes care of a considerable amount of the profit that is being made. Removal of the worries concerning the succession duty tax and the ability to give a farm to the next generation is welcomed by many of the people in the agricultural areas.

I realize a lot of people with estates of 300,000 weren’t affected. The father’s ability to give a farm to his son and not be limited by the gift tax created a lot of problems. It was possible to do it. The only people who got caught were those not in a position to hire a lawyer or to get competent advice on how to follow the exemptions that were available. So I am particularly pleased with that aspect of the budget.

We in Kent county -- and I share Kent county representation with the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) -- would like to put on the record some of the statistics released last week to county council by Barry Fraser, who is the new agricultural representative for Kent county. Every year we estimate the gross value of crops and livestock produced in Kent county. Last year it was estimated at $186,525,000. For those members from urban centres, the province of Nova Scotia produces around $100 million gross. At one time Kent county was almost as much as the three maritime provinces put together; they have improved a little bit and we are now about the same as two of the maritime provinces put together.

Mr. Nixon: How are you with fish?

Mr. Watson: How are we with what?

Mr. Nixon: Fish. They have fish down there.

Mr. Watson: We have a little bit of fish coming in, but we don’t count it in the agricultural statistics.

Hon. W. Newman: Just because you didn’t catch anything last week you shouldn’t blame it on anyone else.

Mr. Watson: Are the smelt running? I heard it was too cold to have the smelt running.

Mr. Speaker, the member who represents part of Oxford is here and I have a great confession to make to him. I understand that last year Oxford produced more corn than Kent county. Now when the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk looks at the price of corn and at the price of soya beans, he will understand why the acreage in Kent county has changed from corn to soya beans.

Mr. Nixon: Corn was getting close to $3 this morning.

Mr. Watson: One of these years, if he keeps going, maybe he will get some soya beans, too.

Mr. Ruston: He has them.

Mr. Watson: What the members have to worry about, and that I am concerned with, is these people who have put all this corn in. It is bad enough where they have planted that corn up and down the rows -- the soil runs down into the Thames River and we have the benefit of all of that dirt coming downstream. I believe we are going to have to do more in this province to look after the erosion control processes in the rural areas. J know the Minister of Agriculture and Food has this under consideration. It has been a gradual process --

Mr. Nixon: The minister always ploughs a straight furrow; he never ploughs a contour.

Mr. Watson: Well, I am afraid he should turn and plough the contours. Even from that great highway 401, in driving through Oxford -- and perhaps I should more appropriately speak to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), because I think it is in his riding where it is bad -- one can see there are some bad gullies from the storms we have had this year. These people are going to have to realize they are losing tons and tons of good topsoil.

We hear a lot from members opposite about the soil we are selling to people who don’t live in this province.

Mr. Nixon: Up in my area you can jump across the Thames River.

Mr. Watson: Those people who are hollering about that had better start being concerned about saving the soil they have on their farms, and not letting it run down into the ditches and the streams and the gullies and all the things that go with that.

I can’t rise and get a chance to debate in this House without promoting the events in Kent county in September. The International Ploughing Match will be in Kent county. It will be the biggest and best ever.

I had the opportunity of speaking to the convention of the Ontario Ploughmen’s Association this year. I compared this year’s ploughing match in Kent county Ito the birth of a baby and I know that the member for Brent-Oxford-Norfolk will just appreciate this greatly.

We had a little problem in conceiving it; we had a few problems there. We had a little bit of morning sickness getting it going. There have been a few kicking pains now and then. We will likely have a few labour pains before we get this thing horn. But when the International Ploughing Match is born in Kent county on September 25 it is just going to be the biggest and best baby that was ever born.

Mr. Nixon: Trudeau is going to look after the weather.

Mr. Ruston: Is Trudeau there?

Mr. Watson: We are going to have good weather. We have an excellent site. I am not saying we can’t get into wet conditions, but this is located on prime land. The tented city is one field; not a fence, not a ditch in it; 130 acres of sod -- and 130 acres of sod is not easy to come by in Kent county. Seriously, we just want everybody to come down to Kent to this event.

One of the things I have already viewed and which will be a tremendous attraction is a corn mural made entirely from corncobs. The coloured corncobs were sawed in half and split lengthwise. They form a mural eight feet high and 60 feet long, depicting the early pioneer history of Kent county. It is a tremendous work of art; it will be on the outside of the country exhibit building at the ploughing match. I know you will see pictures of it and everything else, but it is just a tremendous effort by the local people. It is already completed and ready to go up this fall. So we will be looking forward to seeing you.

It has been a pleasure to rise and speak on the budget this afternoon. I could go on and cover a lot of things. I know there are some things in the budget which my constituents do not like very much -- the increases in taxes and increases in some other things. But the people in my constituency also realize that there’s no such thing in this world as a free lunch, that things have to be paid for. I think on balance this budget puts the raising of money in areas that are acceptable. None of us likes increases but the money has to be raised somewhere.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad to hear the member for Chatham-Kent speak. He has a farm background and so do I.

Mr. Watson: I wondered why you were waiting.

Mr. Nixon: I would be here, anyway. But I was very glad to hear his remarks because I know, as a former employee of the ministry, it must cast a slightly different aura on what he sees as he takes part in discussions, public and private, with the minister and his former colleagues, from his new and very eminent position.

Mr. Watson: You are right.

Mr. Nixon: I am sure that is so. Even your brother would have to sit up and take notice now and I think that is a very interesting development. I am very glad the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) is here because there are certain matters pertaining to agriculture that must concern us all.

We are undergoing a few changes on our farm in Brant county. We have about 260 acres there; it has been in the family since about 1840 so things do have to change. The member for Chatham-Kent mentioned the ratio of corn and soya beans. On our farm this year, we are putting in about 60 acres of beans but only about 30 acres of corn. We also have 30 acres of fall wheat and about 50 acres of hay. That, balanced off with a few burdocks, is the rotation on which we are trying to make a living. As a matter of fact, we sold a dairy herd in 1971 for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that I found milking cows did not really mix with politics as conveniently as I had hoped.

And it was a convenient time to sell for a number of reasons. I have never really felt that milk quota ought to be negotiable, but, since the government opposite which I have tried to defeat so often had insisted that it be negotiable, I thought I might as well negotiate it. It turned out to be a fairly smart thing to do at the time. We then bought some beef cows and, because of the inadequate policies of the ministry here in the province over a number of years, the price has been very seriously depressed. The minister opposite used to send me a few cheques to make up at least part of the difference in the loss in the cow-calf operation that we ran.

Mr. Watson: That program saved the industry, didn’t it?

Mr. Nixon: Once again, circumstances being such as they are, we felt this was a reasonable time to sell the herd. The last animal will be leaving Woodview Farm in about two weeks’ time, not really deeply regretted by my wife who finds they always get out when I am in Toronto. Many is the time she has run up and down the concession with the help of neighbours to get them back in.

Mr. Williams: You’re not a politician, Nixon. You’re a cattle baron.

Mr. Nixon: The fact is that the fences are in fairly good shape because the minister’s predecessor made some contributions to their financing through the capital grants program. There is a well-known politician in Canada who says farmers complain quite a lot, but in the past there’s been a fairly good capital program here -- not as good as in Quebec, as I am sure the members would all agree, and it seems to have run out of funds lately. I have just been talking to the minister about the re-establishment of a program which would enable farmers, young and old, to come forward with some new programs emphasizing, I think, water control conservation -- which the honourable member was talking about -- and certainly I look forward to it.

[4:45]

I am sure the honourable members are aware that my dad got involved in politics as a farmer and the party was called the United Farmers of Ontario. If you refer to the UFO these days, people tend to think you’re talking about unidentified flying objects, but in 1919, the people in their wisdom reduced the Conservatives to third-party status, something they are going to experience again in the next 18 months.

The Liberals were the official opposition. Sitting in the seats of responsibility, power and government was a combination made up largely of farmers with a handful of Labour Party members from a few of the urban areas. Believe it or not, there wasn’t a single lawyer elected in that whole group, and so the government was able to carry on its business without the benefit of these people intruding -- although it was necessary to open a seat and elect a lawyer so there would be an Attorney General who was learned in the law.

The government was extremely successful and did many innovative things.

Mr. Watson: Did it work for the farmers?

Mr. Nixon: Not specifically for the farmers, although that was certainly close to them. It is unfortunate, of course, that after the government was defeated in 1923, the Treasurer spent a short time in Kingston Penitentiary for his sins of omission and commission. It is a very interesting tale.

Actually, he was a very worthy gentleman who came from the Stratford area. Evidently, some of the money that had come from the cashing of certain bonds which had been floated by the previous Conservative administration had inadvertently found its way into his personal account. It had a very clear and legitimate explanation, but somehow or other the judge felt it wasn’t satisfactory, although in later years there was certainly an eminent justification of the actions, which were quite reasonable, as seen from the position of the times.

I should just mention that my dad was elected in 1919, and at his death in 1961 I succeeded him in the by-election. Between the two of us, we have represented the constituency without a break for 60 years.

Applause.

Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the thunderous applause from my four Tory friends who found their way by mistake in here this afternoon. I can assure them I hope we can continue the record of service to the people at least equally as long.

I remember my dad, who was part of two administrations including for a brief time one of his own, being chided by Les Frost during one of the debates. Les Frost finally said to him, “What have you ever done for the people of Brant?” My dad was able to respond. “I have defeated more Conservatives than anybody in Canada, and that has given me a good deal of satisfaction.” This was widely reported in Brant, and I will tell the House they all agreed.

All of those defeated Tories went on to accomplish great things. They have been clerks of the court and there were other appointments, including one who was recently retired from the liquor store. They have all been able to serve the community in one way or another. My dad used to say sometimes he had the impression in that constituency that you won by losing. However, that doesn’t happen so much any more, and I think that’s a good thing.

I was going to point out to my two honourable friends who are now whispering to each other and who form probably a good deal of the agricultural opinion in the Conservative benches, that while the member for Chatham-Kent has been concerned, perhaps, about the level of the agricultural service, he did not point out in his criticism of the budget that although the general budget has gone up 7.4 per cent, the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has gone up by only 1.5 per cent, I don’t really think this reflects the need of the agricultural economy.

I think instead it indicates the Minister of Agriculture and Food has not been aggressive enough in dealing with his colleagues in getting the farmers’ share of this $15 billion that he and his colleagues are asking us to approve at the present time.

I know -- and he has just confirmed it in certain discussions that we could definitely use more money in support of our capital grant program. Certainly our drainage program runs out of capital each year, as the farmers, on the advice of agricultural representatives and other learned people who are anxious to help the farmers, and are paid so to do, bring forward theft plans for further drainage to increase theft productivity and the conservation of their soil.

It is really a deep disappointment when applications are made and the money is delayed until the next fiscal year simply because the Legislature has not seen fit to fund these important programs sufficiently.

I say again it does not make sense that the budget would go up by 7.4 per cent but that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates would go up by only 1.5 per cent. I know there is some indication that even in the agriculture station near Simcoe -- which the minister has visited -- there could be an increase in the number of researchers available there. There are many programs and projects that have been postponed, or at least are not going forward at the level at which they should, simply because of the cutbacks or the inadequate funding at the hands of the minister.

In that tobacco area -- the Fox Sand area, I guess it’s known as -- they have had very successful experiments in growing peanuts. The peanuts are of a better quality than the American peanuts. The growers feel they would like the support to go forward with a program that would utilize the growing facilities in the area.

We all know the area is extremely productive as far as tobacco and certain other crops are concerned. The farmers, through their marketing board, have cut back on the acreage considerably.

Mr. Speaker: Cheese too.

Mr. Nixon: What?

Mr. Speaker: Cheese too?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to cope with that kind of interjection. Actually, there isn’t any cheese from down there.

I will not direct this to the Speaker, but one time in his presence I mentioned that the village of Bright, in my constituency, about 20 miles north of the main tobacco area, has an excellent cheese factory. He suggested, out of the generosity of his heart, that perhaps I, as the member, might provide some of this fine old cheddar from the Bright cheese factory for Mr. Speaker’s table. I have been a bit remiss in doing this. I will take his interjection as further warning that I had better deliver the goods or not brag about the quality of the product quite so much.

Mr. Young: Maybe he’d be satisfied with the peanuts.

Mr. Nixon: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s budget as it is put forward in the Ontario Budget, 1979, this blue-covered volume which I hold in my hand and which we are asked eventually to support.

I suppose I have also developed a bit of a reputation around here as a skinflint. I have not voted against raises in indemnity for members of the Legislature, and I thought I would say something about that. With inflation the way it is, I have found as a rule of thumb that a factor of five is operative in the costs of goods and services, compared with when I was first elected.

Just a few night ago I had the great pleasure of taking my wife and my two daughters to dinner downtown and to the O’Keefe Centre. By the time we got home that night I realized I had spent about $170 on these three fine ladies. The seats for Man of La Mancha were in row Z, and they cost $20 each. The dinner, not the best in town but a very nice one, cost us about $70 to $80 for the four of us.

I regained my equanimity when I realized that if you just divide that by five that’s about the same cost as when I was first elected 17 or 18 years ago. What is $150 to $170, depending on whether you count the gas et cetera, was about a $30 evening, and not too far out of line.

When I was first elected, the indemnity was $5,000 and the expense allowance was $2,000. Now, if we were to apply that factor of five, we as private members should be getting, just to keep up with that inflation over those years, about $25,000 indemnity and about $10,000 expenses.

We are criticized from time to time for raising our own pay, but even though our last raise of four per cent went into effect just six or eight months ago it is obvious that we are not being paid as well as we were when I was first elected.

Mr. Watson: You’re not worth as much.

Mr. Nixon: I used to teach school, Mr. Speaker, as you know, and I have been quite satisfied to equate what I was earning here with my friends in the teaching profession. I am here to report to you, sir, that the able men and women who are still my friends who stuck with the profession instead of going into public life are now, I would say, if not substantially, markedly, immeasurably better rewarded for their efforts than I am. When I discuss this with them they say that the teaching job is tougher than it was in my day. Keeping things in control and responding to all the paperwork demanded by the elaborate bureaucracy of Bill Davis’ county school boards makes the job even tougher than it was.

The other area you heard me comment on from time to time is the tendency of members of the government, and to be fair, members of this Legislature, to travel at public expense to all parts of the globe. I have always felt that when I travel it is eminently justified. This is a tendency, I suppose, for an individual to make that sort of judgement. I know that my colleagues in the Liberal Party as well as the other parties, get mighty sick of me complaining about this from time to time.

Mr. Conway: Never.

Mr. Nixon: I even indicated to you, sir, that the recent junket of representatives from all parties to Barbados to see what they’re doing down there in the winter weather was something less than a trip with which I was enthusiastically in support. My colleagues went along, and that’s their judgement, but I raise this simply because in my hand, just a few moments ago, was placed a book entitled, Reform Government in the Dominion: The Pic-Nic Speeches. On page 120, the then Prime Minister, Honourable Alex Mackenzie, a great Grit from the Sarnia area -- and a Baptist son, my grandfather used to tell me -- was making a speech in Orangeville on September 18, 1877. Since there’s no limit to this debate I thought I would read a couple of paragraphs from the right honourable gentleman’s remarks. I quote from his speech:

“Sir John Macdonald has ventured within the past few days to speak in a somewhat personal manner of an offence alleged against myself. He told the people of Amherstburg that when I went to England in 1875 I want there for recreation, but that you had to pay the expenses of the journey; and another gentleman, Mr. W. H. Gibbs, stated that as my wife accompanied me, I must have paid her expenses also. (Laughter.) This is the style of speaking indulged in by these gentlemen who call themselves the leading statesmen of this country and I sincerely condole with the Conservative gentlemen present who are induced to follow through Coventry such leaders as these. But, sir, it might be worthwhile, as Sir John Macdonald has questioned this matter, to tell you the real state of the case. I endeavour invariably to avoid doing anything that would be personally offensive to my political opponents. I respect Conservative opinions when I know that they are honestly held. I respect a Conservative leader who tries to give effect to these opinions by legislation and who tries to argue Liberals into a belief in Conservative principles. But, sir, when any person occupying the position of leader of the Conservative Party travels outside of the record, as Sir John does in this instance, I think it but fair that I should show the contrast between the travelling expenses of his administration and those of the present administration.

“In 1868, one of them visited England; another in 1868-69; two others in 1869-70; another in 1871 and another in 1873-74. These five visits to England are shown by the public accounts to have cost $20,040.80, or an average of $4,008.16 per visit. Under the new regime there have been four visits to England at an entire cost of $5,461.72 or an average of $1,820 per visit. (Cheers.)

[5:00]

“You can see from the evidence who has been burdening the country by visiting England. Besides, I was not visiting England on private affairs. I had none to attend to there. My health was as good then as it is now; and I may say to them that I feel perfectly confident that my health will be quite strong enough for a good many campaigns in the future. (Cheers and laughter.)”

Mr. Watson: How much would it cost today?

Mr. Nixon: I thought, Mr. Speaker, you would be interested in that. It is much the same in the House and in the Parliament of Canada as it was then. Everybody thinks his travels are justified and that everyone else’s are not only unjustified but unduly expensive.

Mr. Watson: Put your inflation factor to it.

Mr. Nixon: So I’m in the grand tradition, I suppose, but I still think we ought to cut back on these expenditures.

However, I do feel when we look at the budget that is calling for the expenditure of $15 million, it does cover a wide variety of important matters, perhaps even more important than the one I have just referred to, and I want to speak briefly about them.

The first has to do with the controversy over the use of atomic energy in this province. I don’t want to deal with this in any way extensively, but simply to express my own views, which, Mr. Speaker, I should assure you, are very much in support of the concept of the utilization of atomic energy for the production of electricity.

I have the feeling -- in my judgement -- that unless we utilize this Ontario and Canadian resource we will be selling short the opportunities for our people. That does not mean I do not have a very strong concern about the process and procedure whereby we generate the electricity, and, perhaps even more importantly, how we control Ontario Hydro, which has the responsibility, given to it by this House, to provide electrical energy at cost.

I have been involved in this matter really, since I was elected. I recall very clearly the decisions made by the Honourable Robert Macaulay and, following him, the Honourable John Simonett as to our commitment to the atomic program which has now become so large and which looms so large in the consciousness of the people of this province.

At the time -- and I can remember it as if it were yesterday -- the announcement was made that the large Pickering plant was going to be built very close to this urban and urbanizing centre, there was some small question put forward, not in the Legislature but in the community, that it might be better if this plant were built away from the centre of population and the electricity transmitted to the urban area. Although the answer was not given in so many words, it was implicit in the government’s policy that it wanted to show its confidence in the Candu procedure and technology by building the plant close to a centre of population, indicating its confidence that there could be and would be no threat, either perceived or actual, inherent in the process.

I still believe they were correct in that decision and that they are going to be seen to be correct in the long term. When we look at the probabilities -- and that is a misleading word -- of some sort of an incident or accident occurring which would impinge on the populace, we are assured by those who know about these things that the probability is vanishingly small.

One of the most elaborate studies of this was done in the United States in a paper which has come to be called WASH 1400, for reasons I won’t bore you with, Mr. Speaker, and which was done at the behest of the atomic energy control authorities in the United States. The statistics associated with probability become so abstruse they are almost meaningless to people like ourselves, standing in the stead of the citizens who must be concerned as well.

We not only have the responsibility to allay our concerns, but we have the powers, as members of this Legislature, to demand the information as well as the best judgement, not only of the people who are hired by us through Hydro but of others in the academic community here, elsewhere in Canada and, really, around the world.

I was interested to hear at least one of the statistics, meaningless though it might be, that the possibility -- probability is the word that is used -- of an accident or incident having an effect of a bad nature on an individual living within a radius of 25 miles of one of these reactors is something like one in five billion in each year. The chance of being hit by lightning in the same area is one in two million. Both of those ratios are almost meaningless.

In our committee we get to the point where we say if there is a chance of that happening, then of course the big thing is how is it to be prevented. We want that explained as carefully as possible to us as members of the select committee on Hydro affairs. If something does happen -- God forbid -- notwithstanding the probabilities, what are we going to do about it? Because if there is a major release of radioactive energy or radioactive particles, then obviously the people nearby must get out of the way.

It is quite interesting and educational to read the uncensored comments of the American officials as they discussed this matter with one another during the incident at the Three Mile Island plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. These were federal officials who had the final authority, in conjunction with the governor of Pennsylvania, in deciding whether evacuation should take place and what action would be taken to protect the populace.

The part that concerned me was the inadequacy of the information given to them upon which they should base their decision. The other thing, which is probably the most important of all, was the statement reiterated by two or three of the officials that the accident was one which was unexpected.

I still feel that Canada is far ahead of the United States in this, and there is every reason to believe that feeling is justified, but there is the feeling that our experts, atomic and otherwise, with the aid of their outstanding mental abilities, plus the computers and machinery and background technology available to them, which is practically unlimited, must assess every possibility and every combination of possibilities so that an incident -- I prefer to call it that -- as it comes along can be fitted into a category of expectation. It might not have happened precisely before, but at least the experts should be able to say to themselves, “Yes, we have considered this and we know what is the worst that can happen and how it is best contained and what procedures are best to control it.”

The incident at Three Mile Island, if it has a lesson for me, is that the experts down there certainly had not considered the whole range of possibilities. It was almost as if they were flying in an airplane and something entirely unexpected, with which they were not trained to cope, had occurred.

It is interesting also how often the comparison and analogy with flying an airplane does occur. We had the president of the Atomic Energy Control Board for Canada before our committee and the question was asked whether in the last analysis it is up to him or his authorities to move into an atomic station anywhere in Canada where problems seem to be apparent and to finally take over the control. The analogy once again was that it would be almost like the president of Air Canada moving in from the passenger section and take over the controls of an airplane when problems ensue.

On the other hand, that is exactly what happened at Three Mile Island in the United States. The nuclear control regulatory board there -- I should be able to give you its exact name, Mr. Speaker, but I guess it doesn’t make any difference -- did move in and took over control under those circumstances. There is some indication those people who were trained and had the authority of the control board to operate that atomic plant were less than competent when it came to the pressure and emergency of the situation.

Another figure that impressed me at the time was that there were five people on shift at the Three Mile Island plant when the incident occurred about four in the morning. The same shift at the Pickering plant would have about 100 people on it. It is an indication perhaps of the different approach we have to the operation and the safety responsibilities.

I’m not in a position to be knowledgeable enough to criticize the American experience. I have a feeling that the information we receive from Ontario Hydro and other sources tends to emphasize how better prepared, how better engineered we are in similar circumstances. Up until now, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, from my point of view I’ve been quite satisfied that is the case.

As a member of that committee I feel, however, that I stand in the place of any citizen of Ontario who would very much like to have the officials before him for an unlimited period of time and ask any questions his ability and his research would permit him to ask. The officials, whether from Hydro, the Atomic Energy Control Board or some other group, are in a position where they must answer to the best of their ability, because in fact the people are asking the question.

When we make a commitment for the utilization of atomic power, it carries with it so many ramifications for the future of our community that a person can really be a bit nonplussed, if not appalled, to know that the radioactivity of the spent fuel is at an extremely high level, is extremely dangerous and must be contained and controlled for up to 250,000 years. So far we leave this stuff at the bottom of a huge swimming pool. As long as it’s covered by water, there is no emerging radioactivity that is of any concern, but eventually disposition of the radioactive fuel must be accomplished.

Dr. Arthur Porter, in his interim report on this matter, indicated that if we do not come to grips with this matter and come to a solution which is proved to be workable within the next short number of years, about five years, it will be necessary for ns to begin the winding down and eventual abandonment of our atomic goals and commitments.

I personally think that the answer is going to be found in the disposition of this highly radioactive material in rock vaults deep down in the Precambrian shield. This of course gives rise to political problems that the provincial secretary, who is honouring me with his attention right now, knows about. It is difficult to persuade communities or areas on the Precambrian shield to even allow the kind of research that is necessary to drill down to see what the rock is like and if vaults can be constructed. Nobody wants to accept that kind of radioactive storage, particularly when it is made clear the radioactivity is going to continue at a dangerous level for a quarter of a million years.

I don’t have to assure a thoughtful and philosophical person like you, Mr. Speaker, that the world and civilization as we know it, will be completely changed if it exists at all -- by that time. There are those who have suggested that we may well even have to develop some sort of a priesthood of people who guard the access to these storage vaults, whether or not they know what they are guarding. It gives rise to the sorts of things that may lead to some very interesting science fiction, except that this is science fact.

At our meeting on Friday -- and this was discussed in the question period today -- my colleague and leader brought forward information which had come into his hands the previous day. It ostensibly came from an employee of Ontario Hydro or a person very knowledgeable about what went on within the facilities of the Bruce atomic plant. He indicated in his letter, which is now public, that he personally had a concern for the safety of not only the workers but the community around. He brought forward accident or incident reports in their separate parts specifically parallel with what happened at Three Mile Island. He said, “These have all happened, fortunately never at the same time. They have all been properly controlled and administered by the usual procedures undertaken by Ontario Hydro.” But he felt the public should know that if these things -- and God forbid -- happened at the same time, we would have an incident like Three Mile Island. He felt the public should know about it.

[5:15]

My colleague and leader consulted with me and others as to what should be done about it. It may be that in the Premier’s view this should have just been thrown in the waste basket as material that had come from some crank. I don’t agree with that at all. I saw the material. Obviously the incident reports were authentic. The covering letter was eminently sensible. I can assure members that neither I nor any other member of my caucus knows who this person is and we have never spoken to him, as far as I know. But he is from that area and he had the good sense to approach his local member, the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), and it was conveyed through him to my leader, who put it before the committee the next day.

I can understand quite readily the concern that my colleagues on the committee, in the other two parties particularly, would have. They didn’t have notice of this and how could they have? The Leader of the Opposition had the material mimeographed and a file of it put before every member and he stated clearly: “I can’t make a judgement on this but as a member of this Legislature I have done what I feel is the proper thing. I have put it here.” We had discussed this previously, and my colleague who is the energy critic for our party, the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed), made a motion that the committee review the matter without delay.

The argument was put that surely Hydro ought to have a chance to review it and we all agreed that was so. I understand that with the concurrence of all people concerned, the steering committee which I am a member, in place of the member for Halton-Burlington, who is not available today, is going to continue with this discussion Thursday next.

Ontario Hydro is going to examine that material and tell the standing committee what their view is. I don’t really have to issue a caution because I have a good deal of confidence in their views and their moderation, but I would ask that they consider that material as being put forward from the very best of motives. They should consider that material is before the committee because there was not another reasonable alternative, short of raising it in the Legislature and tabling the material. That might have been an alternative.

The Premier seemed to suggest today it should have been discarded, if my colleague had shown the kind of responsibility the Premier recognizes and admires. I reject that out of hand. I would just say to those people who are interested in this -- and all of us must be, whether or not we allow it in detail -- it is not our aim as an opposition party or as members of that committee to try to make Hydro look bad. Far from it. We have mentioned repeatedly our high regard for the officials of Hydro, but we want to be sure we are getting all the information. We have no doubt the information we get is correct, but we want all of it that is pertinent. If Hydro does their job as I see them doing it, they will certainly approach that report and its covering letter, fact by fact, indicate what their response was and indicate their overall view as to whether it offers any kind of a threat to the community at large or the people who work in their plants.

I was quite interested in hearing the report of the four people associated with Hydro who went down to observe the Three Mile Island incident. They came back with many assurances that there was never any time when the public was exposed or might be exposed. Yet when the question was asked, it became apparent at least two workers in the plant there had been exposed to radiation at a level considerably higher than that which is acceptable. The idea that if it happens to people in the plant it doesn’t count -- certainly it’s not fair to indicate they don’t think it’s important, but the separation of the people in the plant from those outside the plant is not as important perhaps to laymen, like ourselves on the committee, as it is to the people in Hydro or to the officials at the Three Mile Island plant.

I think the meeting scheduled for Thursday morning will be an important one. One of the most regrettable things that could happen would be if observers of any political persuasion or Ontario Hydro allow themselves to fall into some misapprehension that the member for Hamilton West put that information before the committee in any way to embarrass the government or to detract from the accomplishments of Ontario Hydro and, really, the government as a whole, in this connection. But it is our job, as members of that committee, not to be easily convinced of anything and not to respond to a kind of a slur on our integrity which might otherwise detract from our efficiency and usefulness in this connection.

I have been around here quite a while, as have you, Mr. Speaker, and I was extremely interested in the incident at the Bruce atomic plant reported over the weekend. In an effort to dislodge the uranium which had become jammed in the atomic reactor, two workmen were exposed to a high level of radiation -- at least, higher than is acceptable under our regulations. I know there is lots of leeway there and there is no reason to expect, if the workmen are kept away from radiation for a substantial period of time, there will be any had effects on them. We trust that this is so.

But I can remember, in earlier debates about Candu, when I was one of the critics of the government policy at the time, substantial concern being expressed by the world atomic community that Canada’s efforts to have a reactor which could be fuelled without shutting it down was an unrealistic aim. It is one of the greatest technological accomplishments in science that the Candu reactor, unlike those in other countries, and certainly unlike the American reactor, can be refuelled without shutting it down.

But the technology is very complex; the machinery must be extremely precise; and, as has happened in this instance, the refuelling procedure caused a jam in the fuel and the workmen, in attempting to dislodge this jammed fuel, were themselves exposed to radioactivity.

It is interesting to note that for every hour one of these reactors is not operating, it costs $78,000 -- I trust that figure is exactly correct -- $78,000 to make up the energy with a coal-fired generator. So, if you multiply $78,000 by 24 hours, it costs close to $2 million a day while the reactor is not operating. We are not too concerned with those costs because we have alternatives. That has been another debate. We have all sorts of alternatives here to generate the electricity. But the atomic reactors, once they are built and operating, and they are extremely expensive and complex to build, are far more efficient and far more economical than any other method of power generation except falling water -- for example, the water at Niagara Falls or elsewhere.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of matters that I wanted to bring to your attention. There is one more I want to speak to briefly which, although it has province-wide connotations, is a problem we are experiencing in the city of Brantford in the county of Brant. It has to do with the policy of cutting back the money for hospitals in support of active treatment beds.

I can’t deal with this in great detail other than to say to you, sir, that the government policy has been to reduce the number of active treatment beds to four per thousand and, a year or 18 months from now, that figure will be 3.5 per thousand. This has been debated by people far more knowledgeable than myself. I can’t comment on that other than to say that the average across Canada is considerably greater than the four per thousand that represents our primary goal, not our final goal. If the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) is successful in this cutback, we are going to find ourselves provided with a far lower level of active treatment beds than our fellow Canadians in the other provinces. I find this regrettable.

In our own case in Brantford, the cutback is substantial and the responsible authorities in our own area, particularly the members of the Brant Health Council, have used rather extreme language to describe the results of the cutback if it is allowed to continue at the level that is presently directed.

The health council itself is relatively new. When it was first appointed, I was somewhat critical of it. I remain so, not on the basis of the members of the council, who themselves are outstanding men and women of the community, but by virtue of the fact that they are called upon to do the dirty work for the Ministry of Health. By that, I mean they are called upon to effectuate the financial cutbacks which are so unpopular -- and properly so -- in the community itself.

We did not have a health council in the palmy days when money was not in short supply and expansions to hospitals and facilities were announced from Queen’s Park. The ribbon was cut by the Minister of Health or the Premier or some other senior member who might come along to do the job. Now that we are in an area where somehow there has been an oversupply of hospital beds, according to the Minister of Health, and the policy is in the downgrading direction, then the dirty work, if I can refer to it that way, is done by local people.

It does not seem fair to me politically that these people should have to stand the criticism from their fellow citizens who see the health council as the group which must cut back hospital beds. The Minister of Health can say, “I am not doing it. I am simply telling you that you must reduce the cost of your hospital facilities by a certain amount, and you can cut it back any way you want.” That is not the kind of local autonomy we had in mind some years ago when local autonomy became a cornerstone of the philosophy of our party.

Mr. Speaker, I know you yourself are very much committed to that cornerstone as well as the other stones in the philosophy and platform of liberalism. I appreciate the fact that you are nodding your head. I wanted to bring this forward because in a recent visit to Brantford when the Treasurer was approached by a number of citizens, indicating their grave concern about this cutback, he indicated that he knew his colleague, the Minister of Health, and the other members of the ministry would certainly not support a policy which was going to depreciate the quality of health care in the community in any serious way.

The members of the health council have publicly stated that this policy is doing just that. I understand that the chairmen of the various hospital boards -- there are four of them involved -- met with representatives of the health council and with the Minister of Health on Friday last for many hours. When I discussed the meeting with the Minister of Health before it took place, he said, “I want to get them in there, close the door and, if necessary, send out for pizza until we come up with some mutually agreeable program.” There has been no announcement of such an agreement.

I wanted to take this opportunity in the discussion of the budget to indicate what a concern it is for me as a locally elected member that the cutback policy is going to have such a severe and deleterious effect on the services that have been built over many years in the city of Brantford and in the county of Brant. Long before the Minister of Health in the Tory government got control of our budget and of every decision that is made there, the people of that area had raised the money themselves and taken the initiative through their own democratically elected board to build these hospital facilities, and they are second to none across the province.

I have visited people in the Toronto General Hospital -- and I know they are upgrading now too -- and I have gone in there and seen extremely ill people, four and six to a room with just a couple of curtains around. I do not know how the people in this town put up with the inadequate hospital facilities here. They may have the best doctors in the world but we at least were better provided through our own initiative with hospital facilities than they were in this town. The imbalance of the planning also concerned me. For years we would drive down University Avenue and find a completely modern hospital abandoned and empty. It was sitting there wastefully for these many years. I see it is now being resurrected as a chronic care facility.

Just last week on the very day when the people in Brantford through their health council were saying that our hospital services were being so severely damaged, the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) got up and announced a $1 million grant for a cat-and-dog facility here in the city. I suppose the politics of being critical of cats and dogs is questionable, but when it is compared with providing facilities for people one can be sure that any sensible person, at least in my area, would say we ought to go easy on cats and dogs and make some of that money in Wintario, which is guarded by that lion, the Minister of Culture and Recreation, available for the use of people and the provision of their hospital services.

[5:30]

I am not sure whether in the last analysis, when we deal with this budget some time in December, I will be supporting a motion in support of it or not. I presume that I may, if the House survives until then. I think, however, there are going to be many people in this House looking at the results of the federal election on May 22 and wondering what it will do to the political situation here in the province.

Bill Davis is obviously looking for some legitimate reason -- and maybe an illegitimate reason -- to go to the people. I know he doesn’t like running a government where his opponents far outnumber -- not only in their numbers but in their ability -- his supporters. I have a feeling that if the pollsters he hires in Detroit ever give him a report indicating he might get a majority on some issue or the other then this House will not last very long.

As long, however, as he has the feeling -- and it was a very sensible feeling indeed -- that the people are simply looking for a chance to replace this Conservative government with a Liberal one, one that historically has kept in mind the taxpayers and the provision of adequate services, health and otherwise, then I suppose he will not risk an election until he must.

I hope to have a chance to address you, Mr. Speaker, in this debate next year as well. I look forward to that, and I hope and pray that the financial basis of the province is improved by that time and we are not facing once again a $1.7 billion deficit and the irresponsible allocation of our scarce resources which have led to the criticisms in my speech this afternoon.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate. I am not going to deal, at any great length at least, with the items that are dealt with in the budget. Rather, I want to spend most of my time commenting on a matter that is not dealt with in the budget and which I feel should have been dealt with in the budget. That is the subject of some ad hoc control over prices; some measures to deal with the tremendous price escalation that is taking place in our society. All the statistics bear this out and there can be no question about this, price escalations are now exceeding the average increase in wages and salaries; price escalations are causing the cost of living, particularly in the essential areas, to increase at a tremendous pace.

The most serious, of course, is the increase in the price of food, which has gone up 21 per cent in the last year. But there are many others, and many of them are just as startling or even more so; whether it is in other wholesale prices, whether it is in building products, whether it is in land prices for building lots. In the end it matters not where the increases take place, because in the end they are passed on to the consumer.

The consumer in this province is not in an enviable position compared to most other democracies in the world. Our standard of living has traditionally been the second highest, over many decades, the second highest in those democracies in the western world -- the United States has traditionally been first; but that average standard of living now, as I am sure everyone here knows, is down to fifth or sixth place and is rapidly moving down, perhaps to even tenth place. The standard of living of this nation and the United States is on the same kind of a skid compared to the rest of the world.

That skidding in the economy has brought about a condition where the Canadian dollar has been dramatically reduced compared to most other currencies in the world. It has skidded, in the last two years, something like 80 per cent compared to the Japanese yen. It has gone down some 60 per cent compared to West Germany. It’s even gone down almost 30 per cent compared to what we like to think of as the depressed nations of Italy and England. It’s dropped almost 30 per cent in the last two years compared to those countries.

I hear the member over on that side of the House almost poking fun at what is happening in England today. Yet apparently world confidence in the British nation is still higher than it is in Canada in terms of the extent to which our dollar value has been reduced.

Mr. Nixon: Jeremy Thorpe has maintained that confidence.

Mr. Swart: I wouldn’t have thought the member would want to raise that name at this time.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t you think he should have a trial before he’s found guilty?

Mr. Swart: I’m not sure he has retained, in every respect, the confidence of the people in England.

Mr. Nixon: A very active chap.

Mr. Ruston: British justice is what you should be for.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the result of the depreciation of the Canadian dollar relative to all other democracies in the western world has meant the cost of goods we must import has gone up rather dramatically.

This has been complicated by the fact there have been no steps taken, either by the Canadian government or the Ontario government, to produce more of the goods ourselves. We recognize there are certain food products we have to import from the southern United States or elsewhere, but we really have not taken any steps in other areas to make ourselves more self-sufficient, whether it’s in manufactured goods or in the general field of food. The statistics all bear this out; the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and Statistics Canada all bear this out.

That is part of the reason our prices have escalated to the degree they have. This, as I think we know, and as was mentioned in debate the other night, has hurt those in the lower income levels, those who spend most of their money on food. I think this is being recognized by all sides of the House.

I have before me the comments of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) in debate in this House last December 13. I was almost surprised at the concern he expressed at that time; and I am more surprised that if he had that kind of concern he’s done nothing about it since that time.

He said this: “I will be quite frank with you, I go through supermarkets -- and I know something about wage scales in this province, I know something about take-home pay; I am talking about average prices -- I go through supermarkets and I say to the honourable members that quite often I just shake my head; I don’t know how families make it.

“I often wonder what it would be like if I were in the position I was in perhaps 15 years ago, with a young family of three, which makes it a Canadian family of five and which is neither large nor small,” -- that is now quite a bit above the average -- “when I see those prices, even with today’s wages and all the other things that are there, quite frankly I just shake my head. I am convinced there are great numbers of mothers and fathers in this province making extraordinary sacrifices to raise their families. And we’re just talking about the basics.

“I think it is very unfair to suggest that labour, whether we mean a farmer, a salaried or an hourly-paid worker, should not have the right to respond to that. If it continues, there is only one logical response: You have to get more money to cope.” That’s the end of the quotation on that point.

When there was an intervention by the member for Erie, he went on to say: “That’s what I was just coming to: what we will be doing. One of the reassurances in this is the question of monitoring the prices, certainly in regard to something as basic as food. It also comes at a very critical time because of the demise of the Canadian dollar.

“What we intend to do with the monitoring of food prices is to be able to take the producer, through his marketing board or whatever organization he sells through -- and most do sell through a board of some kind, with the largest exception probably being beef.

“Second, we will look at the retail price and bring it to the attention of the public.”

He went on and on, expressing real concern about what was happening with prices, particularly food prices, but then said they were going to monitor the prices, and somehow or other expecting -- or hoping, I guess -- that this would solve the problem that the people in the lower income brackets particularly are faced with at this time in the economy of this province and of the nation.

I said it is those on low incomes who are hurt the most. That is very true. Certainly this government has done nothing -- I say that advisedly -- it has done nothing to see that their standard of living is kept up. even though the number in the lower-income bracket is increasing.

In a report a year ago, the Economic Council of Canada pointed out that average income is dropping in the lower 20 per cent of the income group and the income of those in the top 20 per cent was increasing rather dramatically. The report pointed out that, although there have been all kinds of programs, both provincially and federally, which were introduced on the pretext that they were going to assist those on lower incomes and make for greater equality in our society, what has really happened is the reverse of that.

They go on to give a great number of details of this. When this income has been redistributed upward, they say the result has been to reduce the share of total income of the bottom one-fifth of the families -- the bottom 20 per cent of the families -- from 4.4 per cent to four per cent in the last 10 years. It has also resulted in an increase in the share of the top one fifth from 41.4 per cent to 42.5 per cent over the 10-year period, when we were supposed to be introducing these social security measures.

To give some further examples of how the pour are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer, and the poor are being hurt most by the increase in the prices in our society, this government has increased the minimum wage by 13 per cent in the last three years. While the cost of living has gone up 26 per cent, this government has increased the minimum wage by 13 per cent. Also in the last three years, the amount of money being paid to the average family on family benefits or disability pensions has increased by about 15 per cent, while the cost of living has increased by 26 per cent. Even workmen’s compensation payments, in percentage terms, have not kept up with the increase in the cost of living.

The point I really want to make, of course, is that the cost of living does not increase by percentages. The cost of living increases by dollars and cents. Contrast a person who is making $4 an hour and gets a 10 per cent increase, against a person who is making $50,000 a year -- and there are certain professions in that category -- and gets a 10 per cent increase; that’s not a comparable increase in any sense of the word. In no sense of the word is that a comparable increase, because when that person on the low income has to go out and buy his groceries he doesn’t pay for them in that percentage increase, he pays for them in dollars and cents.

[5:45]

Statistics Canada points out that the low-income families, those on $7,000 a year, spend something like 25 per cent of their income on food; those on higher incomes, those with $26,700 average income, spend something like 13.7 per cent or just about half; yet it is in the area of food particularly that there have been dramatic increases in prices. That is the reason, of course, that last Thursday we had a resolution before us from the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) asking that a food prices review board be set up so that the government could take some action against unjustified price increases.

Mr. Nixon: Is that the one the Tories blocked?

Mr. Young: That’s right.

Mr. Swart: Yes, that’s the one the Tories blocked. In fact I suspect they were embarrassed by that motion and that is why they had to block it. If it is an innocuous motion they don’t stand up to block it; but when is has meaning, when it is going to be an embarrassment to the government if it goes through, then they stand up to block it.

I’m not surprised they stood up to block it, as a matter of fact, because there has been a trend to the right by that government over there for quite a period of time.

Mr. Hodgson: How about another select committee? Let’s have another select committee.

Mr. Swart: We don’t need a select committee.

Mr. Hodgson: I think we should have one. We have seven now; we should have seven more.

Mr. Swart: That’s the route of the government. to establish a façade, something that looks as though it’s going to do something about problems in our society; but when you look behind the scene, Mr. Speaker, you find it really doesn’t do anything meaningful. If the government had that prices commission as proposed in the resolution, if it gave itself the power to do something about controlling prices on an ad hoc basis, it couldn’t get away without doing something about it.

Mr. Williams: Come on, call a spade a spade; put the blame where it belongs, with the federal wage and price control program.

Mr. Haggerty: He wants to bring in price and wage controls, that’s what it is, but he doesn’t want to come out and say it.

Mr. Hodgson: Beef prices are too high; we’re paying the farmer too much for his beef.

Mr. Swart: The interjection from the other side of the House -- at least from over here to my left, if that member could ever be to the left of anybody -- would indicate that the answer again lies in wage and price controls. I suggest to him that they were much more wage controls than they were price controls, and the statistics show it.

If the members, even the members over there, look at what is happening at the present time, they must admit that what we need is a control on prices, not wages. Wages haven’t escalated in any extreme manner. I’m sure members must agree to that. Since the Anti-Inflation Board controls came off it has been six per cent, seven per cent --

Mr. Nixon: For some only four per cent.

Mr. Swart: Yes, but as I was pointing out a few minutes ago, I may say to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk --

Mr. Hodgson: He’s an important man; he looks after the whole area.

Mr. Swart: -- those on higher incomes who get a four per cent increase, when it comes to real purchasing power get more than the person on a low income who gets six or eight per cent.

Mr. Nixon: That’s what happens to cabinet ministers.

Mr. Swart: I’m sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is one of those people with such a large amount of private holdings --

Mr. Nixon: Baloney.

Mr. Swart: -- that the four per cent he receives --

Mr. Nixon: I can’t say I’m starving; no one would believe that.

Mr. Swart: -- from this Legislative Assembly would not have any real meaning to him, whether he got it or whether he didn’t get it.

I am not surprised the government members stood to block that motion because the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) said on October 24: “I am I an economic conservative, which means I believe this government must work to reduce its role as a regulator of so many facilities and services. I also believe we must look with new respect to the words ‘profit’ and ‘free enterprise’ and recognize their value in creating new jobs,” et cetera, et cetera.

Total faith. Going to solve all the economic problems in our society if they can only allow the corporations to make more profit. They should be living in an ideal state now because if one looks at the profits of the corporations so far for last year and so far this year, it would certainly indicate the companies are doing very well indeed.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the member for Welland Thorold has something further to say.

Mr. Swart: Everyone may not agree with you, Mr. Speaker, but at least I am going to take more time in any event.

An hon. member: I hope you’ll last until six o’clock.

Mr. Swart: Yes, I will -- a little while after that.

I think it is time the people in this Legislature, the members of all parties, asked themselves whether in every instance the competitive system is working or can work to protect the consumers of this province and of this nation.

We in this party believe that, by and large, competition is a very excellent way of protecting the consumer in most areas. They like to depict us as some sort of radical socialists or doctrinaire socialists --

Mr. Nixon: Glassy-eyed socialists is the word we use over here.

Mr. Swart: That’s because we wear glasses here.

Mr. Foulds: I think Nixon has the biggest pair of glasses in the Legislature.

Mr. Swart: The facts are that we in this party are not doctrinaire socialists. We are not doctrinaire anything. We simply think the system which works the best for society is the one that should be used. If sometimes, or most of the time, that means a competitive system and the private enterprise system, we are prepared to accept that. If it means in some instances we must have regulations and controls to ensure one fits within the framework of what is good for the people of this province and this nation, then we are for that. If on other occasions it means one should be brought under public ownership, we are for that. But we do not believe you can put all your eggs in one basket and say that worked 50 years ago and therefore it’s going to work today. Because it doesn’t, and the competitive system today per se is not working in all areas.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t tell me you are prepared to accept another system.

Mr. Swart: I am not prepared to accept any other system than the democratic socialist movement. I’ve been a supporter of that party since 1932. I suggest if we had had more people supporting it and been able to elect more governments, we probably wouldn’t have been in the situation we are in today in much of Canada. Whether people like to admit it or not, whether it comes to a greater equality in the standard of living and a higher standard of living or a higher degree of employment, Mr. Speaker, if you look at Saskatchewan where they have had that kind of government for several decades, it is a model of what can be done in this nation.

Mr. Nixon: It’s the only province that’s going down.

Mr. Swart: There are a number of reasons why we have to take this very in-depth look at the economic system we have now as far as controlling prices goes -- competitive prices.

The first thing is the high degree of concentration we have in many areas. Much of the industry is owned from outside of this nation. I’ll go into that a little bit later or perhaps a little bit earlier, on Thursday or later this week. All the statistics show a greater and greater elimination of competition because there are fewer and fewer companies. Many of them have reached the stage where it’s easier for them to compete in their advertising in almost every other way than it is to compete with prices.

Mr. Nixon: They’re like the American unions.

Mr. Swart: They have reached the stage where they are so large in our society that others really dare not compete with them because they are big enough that they can force them out of existence whenever they decide that’s what they need to do.

In the food industry, statistics were given in this House last Thursday night by my colleague from Hamilton Centre who was speaking on this. I want to add a few at this time. I The four major chains, Dominion, Safeway, Weston and Steinberg’s, control 77 per cent of the supermarket outlets in Canada. In Ontario there are four major chains, Weston, Dominion, A and P and Steinberg’s. Anybody who is familiar with that knows that Dominion is the big one and has almost as much as the other three. They control 86 per cent of the super markets.

Bruce Mallen, in the 1976 study for the food prices review board, concluded that consumers were overcharged at least four per cent on Food bills because of the degree of concentrated ownership of the retail level. In Ontario, he said that amounted to $250 million a year that consumers were paying that they shouldn’t be paying.

Mr. Hall: Those figures were later denied.

Mr. Swart: You can deny them. I am not saying that they are absolute. The simple fact is that if one looks at the profits of the supermarket chains and at the concentration of control in the supermarket chains and if one looks at what happens with the power that the supermarkets have even with the processors and with the farmers, it becomes perfectly clear they can almost charge what they like because of the concentration they have. Whether it’s $250 million or $100 million, it makes no difference because that concentration is getting greater all the time. If they can get away with an extra $100 million this year, it will be a $150 million or $200 million next year.

Mr. Nixon: It’s like unions when they get too big.

Mr. Swart: The concentration of power they have is inhibiting -- and that’s putting it mildly -- the competitive system to protect the consumers. There’s no question about that.

Mr. Williams: Stop spending your money at Dominion Stores and inflating their profit.

Mr. Nixon: You’ve got one minute left. Let’s have the answer.

Mr. Swart: It’s only Liberals who can provide a one-minute solution for every complex problem.

Mr. Nixon: You’ve got us all worked up. We thought we were going to get an answer.

Mr. Swart: Come back Thursday.

On motion by Mr. Swart the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.