Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the other members of this Legislature, a group of students. Grade 12 urban geography students from the Sault Ste. Marie Collegiate in Sault Ste. Marie. They are with their teacher, Mr. Doug Machetney, seated in the west gallery.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing some 95 pupils who are here from the Glendale Secondary School in Hamilton in the riding of Wentworth. They are with their teacher, Mr. George Fisher.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FIRE IN ROOF OF LEGISLATURE

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the members of the House some of the details regarding the fire that took place in this building at noon hour yesterday.

An hon. member: Who lit it, the NDP or the Liberals?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The Tories started the fire so they could get rid of the fire.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it has been confirmed to me that the fire was started as a result of workmen carrying out repairs to a section of the roof on the northeast wing. These rather emergent repairs were being carried out by a contractor who was the successful bidder of five which were requested to tender on the project.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Is that of urgent public importance?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Just think what the others would have done.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I thought, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues would be interested in that fact. The cost of the contract was $3,766. According to the roofing contractor, he was using a charcoal pot to heat the soldering iron. He explained that during the time the men left for lunch, they covered the charcoal pot with a piece of copper. They believed that the wind must have blown sparks from the charcoal pot on to some exposed roofing boards.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wish the minister would give us as much detail in other matters.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): And we didn’t even ask for this.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the details of the fire that destroyed a great portion of this building in 1909 are almost identical, as the same type of charcoal pot was left burning over noon hour by some tinsmiths.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Even the same pot was used?

Mr. Stokes: They never learn, do they?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t think we can blame it on the same tradesmen.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The same government?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t believe the contractor became aware of the fire until the fire alarm went, as his men were on noon lunch hour.

Mr. Reid: Who is going to pay for this?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I personally visited the scene of the fire last night, Mr. Speaker. I might say that this morning at 8 o’clock a meeting was held among representatives of the contractor, the contractor’s insurance company and my staff. I am told verbally that the contractor carries approximately $500,000 worth of insurance. It has been agreed that the insurance adjusters for the contractor will assess the damages and make proposals for the repairs.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I hope they don’t condemn the building.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Maybe some of the people in it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The contractor has been instructed and has agreed to supply temporary tarpaulins and other measures to make the building watertight in the meantime.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Make it leakproof. That would be better.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the fire alarm was activated at 12:18 yesterday afternoon and the fire department immediately responded, as the fire alarm rings both in the fire department and in the central control headquarters of my ministry. The provincial police and the security staff, after the second alarm, when it was assured that there was a fire, evacuated the building.

Mr. Stokes: Is that right that they couldn’t get the Premier (Mr. Davis) out of the building?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): That’s right, business as usual.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and my colleagues in cabinet were very busily meeting with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Labour at that moment, as members are well aware.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: They know all about it.

Mr. Martel: I understand they were burning the Davis tapes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What fire was the member for Sudbury East putting out last night?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the city building inspection department, Ontario Hydro, Toronto Hydro and Consumers’ Gas, as well as the fire department, were called in in case they were needed to cut off any services. Certainly, in the penthouse of the east wing flames were going in good order. Through the action of the fire department the damage was kept to a minimum. By 2 o’clock the district chief declared the emergency over and allowed the building to be reoccupied.

Mr. Deans: They call that the attic.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word of compliment to the staff of the Toronto fire department, Toronto Hydro, Ontario Hydro, Consumers’ Gas, the Toronto building department and to the staff of my ministry.

Mr. Reid: And to everyone else who made a statement.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Because of their quick response to an emergency, not only was the fire kept under control but also the water damage to the rest of the building was kept to a minimum. I think these gentlemen should be complimented for their work.

Mr. Reid: That is the most he has said since he became a minister.

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

COST OF LIVING PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Chairman of Management Board. Now that certain Canadian corporations, like Stelco -- and yesterday the government of Canada -- have made special cost of living payments to their employees, is the chairman considering similar payments to the employees of the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be quite evident on examination that the government has taken into consideration some of the aspects of the question raised by the leader of the official opposition in regard to recent settlements; and we have had this further matter actively under consideration until this particular point in time. Now, we have to and we will consider the impact of what this means to the people in the employ of the government of Ontario and an announcement will be made in the very near future.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is consideration being given by Management Board based on a cost of living indexing of salaries within the public service, or a lump sum payment?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, I am not prepared to give a complete answer to that question because it is a matter of policy; and when that policy has been determined, I will make it known to the House.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if he will confirm that the low bid to construct three of four stations at the Krauss-Maffei CNE test track was $2,106,700 and that this amount is greater than the expected cost of all four stations that must be built at the CNE test track? Is he also aware of a statement as reported in Hansard of Nov. 5, 1973, by the now president of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., Mr. Foley, who said: “We have, in fact, built into our contract price escalators on the test demonstration system”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, I am aware of that figure; that was the low bid. And yes, I am aware that it is about one-third higher than the anticipated estimate. This particular bid was for three stations -- at Princess Gates, Royal York and Dufferin. There are still two more buildings to be tendered on -- the maintenance building and the station at Ontario Place. I am not aware of the particular statement referred to of November, 1973; however, I do know that there are certain escalation clauses in the contract and I believe that contract is public knowledge.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the minister recall that in the discussions by the ministry as to whether Krauss-Maffei or some other corporation would get the contract for the test track, one of the reasons that Krauss-Maffei was selected was that it had a firm price of $6 million; whereas, for example, Hawker Siddeley could not give such a firm price? Wouldn’t the minister now agree that the Krauss-Maffei bidding position was, or at least the acceptance of such a position, was something akin to irresponsibility, since we have seen a substantial increase and escalation in the cost of the line itself and now a 30 per cent increase in the cost of the stations?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is equivalent to irresponsibility.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think as the hon. member knows, just recently in the House I did explain, I hope, that there were two parts to that particular contract, one of which did have the fixed price -- and that was the part of the responsibility of the developer for the guideway -- and that the civil engineering part was part of the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The part that the Krauss-Maffei people are involved in is at a fixed price.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister not now agree that with these bids available -- I understand none have been accepted as yet -- that the price is going now from about $23 million to close to $25 million?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Including this particular bid?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I would suggest that the member was so close to the last figure that I am not going to challenge him on this until I have a chance to check it.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): I guess not.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would suggest that he probably is fairly close --

Mr. .Breithaupt: That’s the spirit.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- but I would also point out, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Roy: We should take care of the minister’s negotiations.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should refrain from making any comments; he ends up in the press all the time.

Mr. Roy: He should look after his ministry instead of looking at planes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the costs are high, there is no question about that. I think we can relate a great deal of this cost to the inflationary spiral that has taken place in the last two or three years.

An hon. member: Not 40 per cent.

Mr. Renwick: Did the minister say that is the fault of the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And I can say, Mr. Speaker, that I am as concerned about the escalating price as anyone else is; and in fact when the figures in this particular bid came to my attention yesterday, I stated at that time that I want these contracts reviewed; I believe there is an area where some substantial saving might be effected by redesigning. That is exactly what I intend to have done; I want the whole thing to be looked at and possibly have some redesigning of these particular stations.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West, a supplementary.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Given the minister’s response to these various questions, and the way he is approaching it, rather differently from his predecessor (Mr. Carton), is the minister about to beat a strategic retreat on the whole Krauss-Maffei system? Is he prepared to say now that he is going positively to give us the demonstration model? Or is it now possible or likely that even the demonstration model will be chucked over the next three or four months?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will not beat a strategic retreat. I don’t think that is necessary.

Mr. Breithaupt: What kind of retreat will the minister beat?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How about a sensible one?

Mr. Roy: How would the minister like a backward promotion?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is moving back from Moscow faster than Napoleon. Where is he standing now?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And he had a sleigh.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We know the member is there but we are not leaving because of him.

Mr. Singer: How about retirement to consolidate his lines?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has the floor.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Speak, man, speak.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’d be pleased to if I could get some kind attention.

Mr. Speaker, I’m concerned about the rising costs, as everyone else is in this particular area. I have stated from the outset, when I took this position on, that I was not going to be bound by time limitations in order to bring forth some sort of a demonstration project that would not in fact be a proper demonstration project that would show the people of this province what was being provided.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That is a real retreat.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is not a retreat.

Mr. Lewis: It is a total retreat and it will be a complete retreat. He is bailing himself out.

Mr. Renwick: He hasn’t even got a previously prepared position.

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for Rainy River had a supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Was the minister quoted correctly, I believe in the Globe and Mail about a week ago, when he was quoted as saying that if the costs did get out of hand that he would, in fact, cancel the whole project? Did he not see that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously didn’t read the article accurately. I did not say I would cancel the project; I said the whole project could well be reassessed if the price escalation continues.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Well, by way of supplementary --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Point of order: I have just noted carefully that notes have been passed from the press gallery to the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) and the member for Riverdale. They obviously came from the same source. If they are not sufficiently intelligent today to put their own questions, I don’t think these messages should be passed from the press gallery.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is that all about?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! The hon. member for Riverdale is next.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There was no point of order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, there was a point of privilege involved.

Mr. Cassidy: You have got to allow him to defend himself.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. House leader was totally out of order. There can be no further comments.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, a point of order.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, point of privilege; or as my leader says a point of view. I would like to share it with the whole House, but --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: -- it’s a private note; I am sure with the consent of the person who sent it to me I would share it with the House leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Winkler).

An hon. member: Put it on the table.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of view at this time!

Mr. Lewis: I also would like to share with members the contents of the confidential note, but it was a graphic pictorial representation of the Chairman of the Management Board and I wouldn’t submit it to the Legislature!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If it was done honestly, it pleases me.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I forget what the question was. What was the question?

Mr. Lewis: I remember the question. It was from the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Speaker: You are quite right. Now the hon. member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister, when is the review specifically to take place on which the go-ahead or cancellation of Krauss-Maffei will be based?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, at no time have I indicated in the House that the project would be cancelled. I said the project would be looked at. I have made that commitment. I will look at it, not with a view of cancelling it at all, but a view of where we can make some savings in costs.

Mr. Lewis: Of course it’s a view of cancelling.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s my position today.

Mr. Reid: Not a view of cancelling?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Another note? Watch the next supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: It was signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. It seems this is developing into a debate, but in view of my error I will now recognize the hon. member for York Centre.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is a debate?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Would the minister kindly tell us how much of the original $16 million or $17 million contract was firm and to what extent the president of the corporation, Mr. Foley, had built in a provision for inflation in his statement of Nov. 5, 1973? What was the inflationary factor he built into that portion that wasn’t fixed?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I believe those figures are already on the record. I don’t have them here with me, but I believe I read them into the records; that is as to how much was fixed cost and how much was not in that particular contract. I’m afraid I can’t answer the second part of the question at this time. I would have to send to get that information. Certainly there was no build-in for inflation on the fixed portion. The contract --

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): How does one spell paranoid?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and I believe that’s a public document -- indicates some escalation as it relates to the exchange rate on money.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There have been about six or seven supplementaries. I believe that to be quite reasonable. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, let him have one.

HOUSING IN OTTAWA AREA

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if he can confirm that Ontario Housing has purchased building lots in Goulbourn township, in the Ottawa-Carleton region, from W. G. Connelly for prices in excess of $20,000 per lot and is now constructing homes on these lots which will sell for a maximum of $19,300? Can the minister explain why, if those prices were paid, the Ontario Housing Corp. is not servicing property itself in the area? And further, to what extent the homes then would be subsidized to be sold for $19,300?

Mr. Lewis: The land would be leased.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague, I think I would have to challenge the arithmetic of the hon. member. First of all, yes, Goulbourn township is the site of a Home Ownership project and has been for a number of years. The present Glencairn subdivision was built under the HOME plan. The lots have been purchased not from Connelly but from the successor company, Costain. I will have to check into the exact prices, but the prices the hon. member mentions seem to me to be out of line.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought so too.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’ll certainly check into them. I doubt their accuracy.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary in relation to Ontario Housing activity in the Ottawa area?

Mr. Speaker: I’m not sure. If the hon. member feels he can make it supplementary to the original question --

Mr. Roy: Yes, thank you, I’ll try.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll be glad to listen to it.

Mr. Roy: Could the minister advise us about Ontario in relation to the project announced March 1, where 155 units will be constructed at a price of $3.5 million, which works out to $22,500 per unit, when in fact last year in the same area they were constructing these units in October and August for $11,000 per unit and $17,000 per unit?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Question? Question?

Mr. Roy: What’s the reason for the high jump in a period of a few months?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a high jump.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry. The interjections were so loud and so frequent and probably so justified that I couldn’t hear the question completely. I’m not aware of the statement that the hon. member is referring to. I understood the original question to which the supplementary was asked was on Goulbourn township.

Mr. Roy: No, no, Ontario Housing.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Perhaps the hon. member will identify the area he has in mind and I will be able to get him an answer?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: All right, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell when enough land will be made available in the Ottawa area at reasonable cost so that houses will not have to be made available through the HOME plan only by lottery and not according to need?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, of course that is our goal in every part of the province, not only the Ottawa area.

Mr. Cassidy: But they are getting further away from it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We will be using the lottery system until such time as the supply meets the demand and we think it is by far the fairest way of making allocations when there is a scarcity. Our housing action programme is well under way in the Ottawa area and I’m firmly confident that I will be making an announcement very shortly that will please my hon. friend.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Oh, I am sure the minister will be.

Mr. Martel: We have been waiting since Feb. 26.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition? The hon. member for Scarborough West.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Back in the early part of April he indicated there would be a full statement on the Ontario housing action programme within two to three weeks. When is that statement to come?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows we have run into some delays which we didn’t anticipate.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the minister not know he would run into delays?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It isn’t all that easy to conduct a three-way negotiation and get all three parties to agree at the same time. I’m still hoping to have that announcement -- in fact, I am confident I will have an announcement within a very short time.

Mr. Singer: Yes?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary or related question of the minister: Am I to understand he has been having discussions with developers who own or control some 15,000 acres of serviced or about-to-be-serviced land in the Metropolitan Toronto area and in the regional government areas immediately east and west, for which he hopes to get homes at a considerably reduced rate because of the trade-offs which the government is offering? What are the trade-offs he is offering to the development industry?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The only trade-off, Mr. Speaker, which has been offered to anybody is the acceleration of approvals of subdivision proposals.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary --

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary --

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, if I may ask the minister, about his difficulty in negotiations and the delays he mentioned in answer to the question from the leader of the NDP, does he not think he might have more success in his negotiations if he didn’t go around making inflammatory statements about municipalities and other levels of government?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there’s an assumption implied in the question which I don’t accept. I haven’t made inflammatory statements; there have been some diatribes, if I may use the word of the member for Downsview --

Mr. Singer: Right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- by some municipal councillors, but all I have said is let’s get on with the job and stop dragging our feet.

Mr. Lewis: But there are no houses.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If that’s inflammatory, I will continue to say it.

Mr. Lewis: But there are no houses.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to ask the minister, since the approval of subdivision plans rests with the municipal councils, what incentive is the minister offering to those councils to get quick approvals?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all we are appealing to them as citizens of Ontario to --

Mr. Singer: Yes?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- accept a share of housing. We have also --

Mr. Lewis: That’s pretty impressive.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I think that’s a pretty valid appeal, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the member for Scarborough West wouldn’t accept that as being valid; I think it is.

Mr. Lewis: He is appealing to the private sector as well if no houses are built.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have also offered the municipalities guarantees in the form of a schedule of unconditional grants which assure them that their present taxpayers will not have to pay additional taxes as a result of the expanded housing supplies we see coming about as a result of this programme.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I think one more might be in order; the hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Did I understand the minister correctly when he was saying that the trade-off he is offering to those developers who will deal with him is speeding up; and that those who don’t want to deal with him are going to be delayed, or will not be speeded up? Does that follow?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, the hon. member is quick to jump to conclusions. That is not the corollary of the offer we are making to the developers. The other developers will have to take their chances in the normal courses of events.

Mr. Singer: Yes?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But those who enter into our programme will have our active assistance in accelerating approvals.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

HOME PROGRAMME IN ESPANOLA AREA

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Housing: If he wants his HOME programme to succeed, why did he deny to individuals in the Espanola area the right to purchase or to lease HOME lots on which they themselves could build homes rather than having to hire contractors, a request which was made to him by the mayor and council pf Espanola?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the request did not envisage building under the HOME plan.

Mr. Lewis: Certainly it did.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No. The proposal was to lease HOME lots and the lessors would be able to build whatever they wanted on those lots. We are suggesting that public land of this nature should be used for public purposes and therefore should fit into the concept of the HOME plan, which means price ceilings.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is not the public provision of homes a public purpose? Does the minister not think he is imposing southern views of the way in which homes must be built on northern residents, who may themselves be able to proceed?

Mr. Renwick: Almost pre-civil war days.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between homes and Home Ownership Made Easy. That is a Home Ownership Made Easy project and in our view the houses will be built under that plan and under no other.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Scarborough West knows he is wrong.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t think so.

An hon. member: Come on, the member knows he is wrong.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would the minister not agree that in the case that is referred to in question, Espanola I believe, where communications came to all of us in this regard, that at least the minister ought to consider making a percentage of those lots available for local builders to build homes that fit the requirements of the area? Surely he is not ever going to use that phrase Home Ownership Made Easy in Espanola or anywhere else.

Mr. Roy: It is in the minister’s mind.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is such a cynical, political approach to the problem.

Mr. Lewis: In Espanola it is $10,000 a lot.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’ll not only continue to use it, Mr. Speaker, I’ll continue to mean it. There is no question about all of these lots being made available to focal builders to build houses under the Home Ownership Made Easy plan.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: What we are concerned about is the proposal whereby a select few would be favoured over all of the people who want those homes.

Mr. Lewis: Stop it; they are people who need houses.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I think, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members who are asking the question might check into --

Mr. Cassidy: That is the minister’s whole problem; a select few who can get houses by lotteries.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Members might check into the people who are specifically asking for those lots and determine what there is in it for them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think there have been sufficient questions on this topic.

LOCK-OUT AT CANADIAN JOHNS-MANVILLE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour: What is the minister going to do about the lock-out at Johns-Manville in the eastern part of Scarborough, where this subsidiary of a very rough American multi-national corporation has thrown 550 people out of work, allegedly on contract wording?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, my information is that this lock-out is legal. We have received no requests for assistance so far. I just learned about it before lunch time and I am trying to get more information.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister realize that the union involved has said it doesn’t want a strike, it wants to negotiate and can’t get the company to the bargaining table. Doesn’t the minister think that requires his intervention?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: That is what I am trying to find out at the present time.

Mr. Lewis: One more question on this matter. Does the minister also realize that in the first month of 1974, 10 partial disability pensions came from the Workmen’s Compensation Board to 10 workers at Johns-Manville who are now suffering from asbestosis? Since asbestosis has been a killer in the Johns-Manville area, as silicosis and cancer are in Elliot Lake, as lead levels in the blood are in Metropolitan Toronto; doesn’t the minister think it is time, in the area of industrial health and safety, that he moved on an emergency basis in disputes of this sort?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, I think the concern and the deep feeling of this Minister of Labour for our work force in the province is well known. I have already given instructions to my staff, in the case of lead poisoning, to have a very close surveillance of the plant in question; and it is my intention to do this in any area where we hear about health hazards to the employees of any plant.

Mr. Martel: What did the minister do in Elliot Lake?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have more questions? The hon. Minister of Natural Resources has the answer to a question asked previously.

Interjection by an hon. member.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sudbury East asked me last week how many tests my ministry conducted with respect to gas and dust in the Elliot Lake mines up to November of 1973. The reply is that in 1973 over 1,500 samples for radioactivity were taken at Denison Mines; 955 samples were taken at Rio Algom. There is a regular programme of taking dust samples in the working places, which is carried out by the operators and reported to our mines engineering branch.

Mr. Cassidy: By the operators?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This programme has been in effect at the uranium mines since the beginning of operations at Elliot Lake. Dust counts taken under this programme total more than 2,000 samples in the two mines in the past year.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, yes.

Mr. Martel: Would the minister indicate to the House who, in fact, took these samples; the operators or his staff?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think that was in my statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Was it the minister’s staff?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The samples were taken and carried out by the operators and reported to the mines engineering branch.

Mr. Lewis: Very useful information.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary question: Doesn’t the minister realize that the complaints of the men have indicated that before samples are taken, the company in fact waters down or takes the tests in front of ventilation outlets and so on?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe I mentioned that this was brought to my attention in the 60-odd complaints that were delivered to my ministry; and it is one of the points we are looking into.

Mr. Lewis: Then why introduce that material?

Mr. Martel: Finally then, in effect the ministry up until this time has done virtually nothing to ensure the health of the men in that area. Is that correct?

Mr. Lewis: They have taken those samples.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is entirely wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: The ministry has not taken samples itself --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It shouldn’t get the companies to do its dirty work. We can’t trust those companies.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for St. George.

Mr. Martel: What has the ministry got two mine inspectors in there for anyway?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Let the lady speak.

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAMME

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Housing. According to his statement on the home renewal programme, the indication is that this government will be dealing with the regional municipalities. Would the minister explain why he has taken this route when the federal government has been prepared to deal with the local municipalities and the problems are for the most part at the local level?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the legislation on the home renewal programme has not been introduced. I understand the federal government does wish to deal with local municipalities, but the local municipalities have asked us to intervene with the federal government and obtain an agreement. So far we haven’t been able to get an agreement out of Mr. Basford at all. The municipalities directly want that federal money, as well as our own, and we are prepared as the province to deal with the municipalities. We can’t speak for Mr. Basford.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think there was a misunderstanding. The statement was made to us by this Housing minister that this was the route that was to be taken. Is that not so?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the hon. member is talking about. I have made no statement on the Ontario home renewal programme whatsoever in this House or outside this House.

Mr. Roy: Is he the Minister of Housing or not?

Mrs. Campbell: Very well then. As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can I have the minister’s assurance that this matter will be brought before the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee for clarification?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, if I was sure what the hon. member was referring to I would be pleased to make that commitment, Mr. Speaker. As I say, the Ontario home renewal programme has not been discussed in the House or outside the House. She may have in mind, just to help her out, our announcement on community-sponsored housing.

Mr. Lewis: RRAP is what she has in mind.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s federal.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. member for High Park was attempting to gain the floor.

COMPULSORY RETESTING OF DRIVERS

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. When is the minister going to institute the programme of compulsory retesting of all drivers, which one of his predecessors, Irwin Haskett, announced on Nov. 2, 1966, was just about ready to be instituted?

Mr. Lewis: Irwin Haskett -- there’s a name.

An hon. member: Who’s he?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: The minister wasn’t here when he was.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Was the hon. member here?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I was.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He has made a lot more progress than the hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well Mr. Speaker, I am really not too familiar with what the minister had to say in 1966. I was busy with other things then. I will be pleased to look at what he said, and if it’s a worthwhile programme perhaps it should be put into effect.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister still believe this programme should be brought in? Is he still working on the programme? That’s what I am really interested in.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’m not; no --

Mr. Roy: Is Mr. Haskett?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- but I would say that if retesting of drivers is going to help in the total safety programme on the highways, then certainly we should be doing something about it.

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

PROPOSED COTTAGE SUBDIVISION ON NAPPAN ISLAND

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Since the Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs approved a 250-lot cottage subdivision, I believe on Nappan Island in the Trent River, did this ministry voice objection to that approval in light of the fact that in 1970 they gave an adverse report, indicating that no further development should take place on that island because of its low-lying nature in relationship to the Trent River?

An hon. member: It depends on who makes the application.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.

Mr. Good: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. minister took the question as notice. There can’t be a supplementary. The hon. member for Yorkview.

CENTRAL YORK TRUNK SEWER

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Housing. Can he give us the present status of the central York trunk sewer?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be directed to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Lewis: He won’t know the answer.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Oh, yes he does.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It wasn’t his turn, was it?

Mr. Speaker: Was there a supplementary?

Mr. Roy: No, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Was there a supplementary? Yes, I’ll permit a supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister of the Environment is the person to whom to direct this question --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Young: -- would he outline the present status of the central York trunk sewer? It runs, as I understand it, from Duffins Creek to Newcastle.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Well the present status is this: The hearings will resume, I believe, on May. 14. That is the date from the Environmental Hearing Board. There are negotiations going on between this ministry and the regional municipalities of York and Durham and Metropolitan Toronto at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

INTERNS’ AND RESIDENTS’ DISPUTE WITH HOSPITALS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Could the minister tell us whether the present negotiations that are apparently proceeding with interns and resident doctors in Hamilton, are going to be equally applicable to interns and residents in other Ontario centres, particularly Toronto and the large cities where there are large hospitals? Or are these negotiations solely confined to teaching hospitals? In other words, is the minister going to do something about all the interns and residents who are serving in hospitals in the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Roy: That was a good question.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I don’t get involved in negotiations.

Mr. Singer: That’s the problem.

Mr. Roy: That’s the problem.

Mr. Singer: We’ll get the leader of the NDP to help the minister.

Mr. Roy: He’s a good PR man.

Hon. Mr. Miller: They won’t let me go into cabinet meetings anymore.

Mr. Lewis: It’s all right. They’re not very exciting anyway.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The leader of the NDP will join any party.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the negotiations going on between the interns and residents and the Ontario Council of Administrators, which broke down a short while back, were, according to the information I got, applicable to all hospitals if they were successfully concluded -- all the hospitals with interns and residents.

Mr. Singer: Well by way of supplementary, can the minister give us any report on the progress of these negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Not up to date progress, Mr. Speaker. The issue that is at dispute at the present time is who has the jurisdiction to settle the questions brought up by the interns and residents; because these issues were not all monetary, some overlapped into the fields of teaching. Now because of this, there was some question as to whether the administrators had jurisdiction to resolve these issues. Advice I’ve been given would indicate they do have. However, I’m having this checked and I’m taking some steps tomorrow, meeting with people from the medical schools and so on to try and clarify these matters.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

RESALE OF HOME PROGRAMME HOUSES

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is the Minister of Housing able to confirm or deny the suggestion that the Ontario Housing Corp. has been aware of a practice currently going on with regard to the resale of HOME properties -- whereby the option to purchase the land has been offered for sale as a separate item apart from the actual approved value and sale of the home itself?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, OHC is aware of that and other practices which are designed to circumvent the restrictions in the resale of HOME units. I think this would be an appropriate time to advise the House and the hon. member that we have referred a number of cases to the OPP for investigation; and any other cases that come to my attention will be studied in that light too.

Mr. Deans: By way of a supplementary question: Can I first ask whether the minister will make it clear, by way of a letter through the Ontario Housing Corp. to everyone who owns a HOME dwelling at this time in the province, that that is an illegal act?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: If it is not an illegal act, will the minister take some steps in this House in the immediate future to make it an illegal act? And third, will the minister please incorporate into the HOME programme the provision that I suggested some weeks ago, that repurchase by the HOME programme be the first option open to a seller of a HOME lot?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, I believe the purpose of the OPP investigation is to determine whether charges can be laid and some illegal acts have taken place. Until that happens, I think it would be presumptuous on my part, and premature, to determine the legality or illegality of a variety of actions on the part of private homeowners.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister will find he left a loophole wide open.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: With regard to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly considering all possibilities to close any loopholes which may exist in the restrictions.

Mr. Cassidy: They do exist!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: On the other hand, if we accept the fact the purpose of the programme is to provide all of the rights of home ownership to people who could not otherwise afford it, then in fact we’re chipping away home ownership rights. I’m not suggesting we may not have to do that.

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on.

Mr. Deans: Don’t use that argument.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If one accepts the philosophy of home ownership as being full ownership with all the rights of ownership, any restrictions on that means one is departing from the philosophy of home ownership.

Mr. Deans: The minister has already departed from that.

Mr. Lewis: He departed from that when he leased the land.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): May I ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: There have been four supplementaries at this time. There are a few minutes remaining and I think we have had enough supplementaries.

The member for Ottawa East.

LOW-COST DENTURE PROGRAMME

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health dealing with the low-cost denture programme.

In view of the Premier’s statement last week that he was not satisfied with the programme being offered by the province’s dentists -- in fact, he said on CHUM radio station that it has not worked effectively -- what does the Minister of Health plan to do to correct that situation?

Second, does he plan to make a statement in relation to the denturists to assist in clearing up this situation?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this question really, in one form or another, has been asked of me quite a few times in the House.

Mr. Lewis: I wonder why?

Mr. Reid: I am glad the minister recognizes that.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have made my position very clear, Mr. Speaker. There will --

Mr. Roy: What is his position?

Hon. Mr. Miller: My position is one of flexibility at the present time.

Mr. Reid: That is more than we used to get.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary of the minister: Does he not think it is time for him to quit playing games with this issue and come out with a definitive statement on this point, in view of his statement to the denturists that he was to have an answer for them some time in March or April?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Somebody suggested I should give the member a partial answer.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): He might have bridged the gap.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That is very good. The member should be asking questions of the Minister without Portfolio; he suggests now that I should bridge the gap.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: He has time to prepare thoughts like that.

Mr. Speaker: There are a few moments remaining.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I realize that, Mr. Speaker; that’s why I am taking my time. I am not playing games. I am considering it very carefully and I have told people that. Once I have managed to cross that bridge the member will have my answer.

Mr. Roy: For God’s sake, the minister should make up his mind.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

PAYMENT FOR ACUPUNCTURE TREATMENT OF WCB PATIENTS

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Labour? Can the minister indicate if his ministry is willing to change its present policy with respect to payment by the Workmen’s Compensation Board for acupuncture treatment so that people in northern Ontario can enjoy the benefits of this treatment whereas the present policy is it is available only in the three paying centres located in Toronto, Hamilton and London?

Mr. Shulman: Stop giving him the needle.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member for High Park believe in that?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, I have heard only recently that some patients were taken to doctors who could give acupuncture service in Toronto. However, I am told that very few cases are being treated by acupuncture. Doctors who can do both are specialists.

I haven’t considered as yet whether it is a worthwhile programme, but I will give the matter consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce is next.

HOPE TOWNSHIP GARBAGE SITE

Mr. Gaunt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment.

When will the ministry’s technical assessment be completed with respect to the Hope township garbage disposal site?

Hon. W. Newman: As soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact the minister’s predecessor said three months ago that it was just about ready, are we to expect that it will take another three months?

Mr. Roy: The minister can tell him he is not bound by that statement.

Hon. W. Newman: I said as soon as possible. I have inspected the site myself and I have asked for further information. I said as soon as possible.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary: Would the minister agree that that particular site should not be ravaged by a landfill site?

An hon. member: Of course he will agree.

Hon. W. Newman: The member will get my report in the fullness of time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

TORONTO BOARD OF. EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANTS

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Is he aware that the educational assistants employed by the Toronto Board of Education have just received a letter indicating that for all of them hired prior to Nov, 22, 1972 -- and that’s about 150 employees -- their per hourly rate will be reduced by 5.5 cents an hour; and that all those hired this year after March 1 will be receiving $2.93 an hour, where even six or eight years ago the hourly rate was $3 an hour? Are the minister’s educational spending ceilings so tight on the Toronto board that they feel they must reduce the hourly rate of these employees in this time of inflation?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): The answer to both those questions is no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

VIOLENCE IN AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Do I interpret his remarks correctly with regard to Mr. McMurtry’s appointment in regard to hockey violence? Do I interpret his remarks to mean he is paying $5,000 worth of taxpayers’ money to conduct an investigation to see if there should be an investigation?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I’d be glad to send a copy of my statement to the hon. member.

Mr. Reid: It’s not the statement we want.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The member asked me a question about the cost of the inquiry. I said it would be about $5,000 and that would include the fees of Mr. McMurtry.

Mr. Reid: That is not what I asked, Mr. Speaker. By way of a supplementary, has the minister appointed Mr. McMurtry to conduct an investigation to see whether there should be an investigation of the whole concept of the violence in hockey?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, if the member will read the last paragraph of my statement, we have appointed Mr. McMurtry to look into the Bramalea incident and its implications. I also mentioned that, if as a result of that inquiry, it is felt that there should be a fuller and wider inquiry into violence in hockey, or amateur sports, we will do so.

Mr. Reid: One short supplementary: Will Mr. McMurtry be holding public hearings? A lot of people have contacted me and want to talk to him.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: He has all the authority under the Public Inquiries Act, Mr. Speaker, to do so.

Mr. Roy: Give me $5,000 and I’ll do it.

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

FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: It is the same question that I put to the minister on Tuesday. In view of the minister’s statements in February and on the weekend that he was going to criss-cross northern Ontario with four-lane highways, I wonder if he could indicate to the Legislature that he is going to change his present policy of doing a feasibility study for five years, then building 10 miles over a five-year period, and then another feasibility study for five years?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I think there was a great deal of commotion on the other occasion upon which the question was asked. I think it’s fair that the question be put again today.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The minister didn’t give him a reply last time.

Mr. Roy: That is embarrassing. He is going to have to answer it this time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is only right that he be given a chance. If his colleagues will allow me to answer, I would be pleased to do so.

I certainly agree with the hon. member that the delays in having these studies completed are frustrating and it doesn’t help to get the work under way that is needed on northern Ontario highways. Some of the delays are almost required because of the studies, with which the hon. member is familiar, that were carried out in his particular riding as to the extension of Highway 17 from Lively to Whitefish. These studies have to be carried out if we’re going to keep any reasonable rapport with the people to determine where these routes are going to be. They do take time.

Anything that I can do, and I say this with the utmost sincerity, to speed up that process, I shall do. But I certainly don’t want to be accused by anyone of taking rights away from other people who want to have their input. That’s exactly what we’re talking about. That’s the major part of the study.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member opposite doesn’t believe in public participation.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister believe that it could be conducted for more than a 10-mile stretch of highway; that he could, in fact, have a feasibility study which would cover 50 or 100 miles, if he’s serious about it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that’s correct. For example, there are, I think, feasibility studies being carried on now by the ministry up in that area of stretches that are 30, 40 and 50 miles. One in particular is of a stretch running easterly out of Sault Ste. Marie which is over 35 to 40 miles. And other studies are being carried on in anticipation of the next leg of the development.

Mr. Speaker: There are just about 30 seconds remaining. The hon. Minister of Housing has the answer to a question asked before.

Mr. Cassidy: Again?

OHC TENANTS DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Downsview asked two questions about the OHC Lawrence Heights project where there was a disturbance a couple of weekends ago and I promised him a report.

The reports from the OHC indicated that on April 19 a motor vehicle accident involving two youths in the project led to an argument between families living on Cather Cres. On the evening of April 20 at least one man was injured. The two groups threatened each other. Police were called and a charge has been laid.

The next evening police dispersed a crowd of persons, both within the project and outside it.

On April 22, a group of tenants met with OHC’s senior management and additional security was assigned to patrol the area to prevent further disturbances and work closely with the Metro police. Since then, patrols have been frequent and nothing unusual has been noticed.

In reply to the supplementary question, it is correct that the trouble would seem to have centred around one household. A notice to vacate has been given arising from other matters, including rental arrears. The question of proceeding to an eviction has to be considered by the board of directors of OHC.

Mr. Speaker: I regret that the time for oral questions has expired.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You regret it?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I regret that I could not get the hon. member for Grey-Bruce in.

An hon. member: We don’t.

Mr. Sargent: So does the government.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Taylor, from the standing private bills committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Niagara Falls.

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee would recommend that the time for presenting reports by the committee be extended to Thursday, May 9, 1974.

Report agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ONTARIO WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION COMMISSION ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Ontario Waste Disposal and Reclamation Commission.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide solid waste disposal and reclamation services throughout the province, including incineration and landfill, to develop procedures and establish plants for the reclamation and recycling of paper, metal, glass and other materials, to study methods of marketing reclaimed materials and to provide waste collection services in areas where it would be uneconomical for local authorities to do so.

MUNICIPAL ACT

Mr. Deans moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to add solicitor to the list of persons who may be dismissed from office only after a hearing. The reason for the bill is that in the city of Hamilton of late there was a dispute arose between the solicitor and the council which might well have resulted in his dismissal without hearing. It seems to make good sense that a senior official of any municipality should be afforded as much protection as possible in order that he might be able to carry out his responsibilities without fear of political or other interference.

I might say, sir, that this is in the form of a housekeeping amendment. I’ve discussed the matter with both the Treasurer of the province (Mr. White) and with the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) and believe that I may have their support, though I am not absolutely sure of anything, ever.

Mr. Reid: The member wouldn’t want to bet on it.

PROPERTY TAX STABILIZATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, in the absence of Hon. Mr. White, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Property Tax Stabilization Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for enrichment to the resource equalization grant, the general support grant and the special support grant to northern municipalities which we promised in the budget statement.

We will add approximately $15 million to the resource equalization grant programme, which will then total $70 million this year; we will add approximately $33 million to the general support grant programme, which will total approximately $82 million; and we will increase the rate for the special support grant for northern municipalities from 10 to 12 per cent, or an increase from $9.9 million to $13.9 million.

The above amendments to the Property Tax Stabilization Act, together with additional changes to other unconditional grant programmes, will go a long way in preventing otherwise inevitable and significant increases in property tax levels in 1974.

REGIONAL MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, in the absence of Hon. Mr. White, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Regional Municipal Grants Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this bill carries out our budget commitment to provide increased per capita grants to regional municipalities.

It increases the basic grant from $8 to $8.80 and provides for an additional 20 cents to cover the cost of increased planning responsibilities.

Payments to assist with the cost of regional police forces are increased from $5 to $7; and the grant toward the cost of police service provided by area municipalities, within the regions, is increased from $3 to $5.

Another significant amendment provides for the calculation of population from assessment rolls rather than from the national census which is frequently out-of-date.

Again, the above amendments are part of the province’s programme of enriched transfers to local governments in 1974, involving a total of $124 million of enrichments over and above an increase in existing grant programmes of $115 million. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the province will be providing local government with approximately $239 million more financial assistance than we did in the year 1973-1974.

Mr. Sargent: How much did it cost? It cost $500 million. Tell them that tomorrow night at Port Elgin.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’ll be there.

Mr. Sargent: So will I.

MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, in the absence of Hon. Mr. White, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this bill gives effect to the announcement in the budget that we will increase the unconditional per capita grants to municipalities from the range of $5.05 to $7.10 to the range of $6 to $8. It also provides for an increase from $3 to $5 to assist with the cost of municipal policing. Another feature of the bill is provision for the Treasurer to make a grant or loan to municipalities which incur a substantial loss of revenue in certain circumstances. This bill is an important part of the province’s announced policy to guarantee participation in provincial revenue growth involving $124 million in enriched assistance to those governments in 1974.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this is a housekeeping bill. The purpose of the bill is to delete the references in the Act to the comptroller of accounts because this position has now become redundant with the establishment of the post audit system of accounts.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills. Any further bills?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, before the next bill is introduced may I take the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House that we have a group of school children from the Kenora area, from the Valley View Public School -- the grade 8 students led by their teacher Bill Downey. They have come a distance of about 1,250 miles and have taken advantage of the Ministry of Education’s Young Travellers programme.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 16th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF ENERGY (CONTINUED)

On votes 1801 and 1802:

Mr. Chairman: This is continuing from where we were when we were last in this particular committee. Any further comments?

The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): I had surrendered the floor at the close of the debate but I just have two items I would like to bring to the minister’s attention, the first one in relation to his responsibilities in regard to Ontario Hydro.

As the minister is aware, Ontario Hydro has indicated that it will be building some generating plants in northern Ontario and particularly in northwestern Ontario. I am here to make a plea for building, I believe it’s an 800 kv plant, in the vicinity of or close to the town of Atikokan. I won’t go into a great deal of detail, Mr. Chairman. The township of Atikokan has been in touch with Ontario Hydro indicating why they feel that Atikokan would be a good site for such a plant.

I believe that Ontario Hydro, if I am not incorrect, is planning a plant of 800 kv capacity, in increments of 200 kv. Atikokan is ideally situated, Mr. Chairman, as the location for such a Hydro plant. It is easily reached by rail from the west; I understand the electricity generated will devolve from fossil fuel, coal in particular. The rail line is twinned as far as Atikokan and it would be an ideal spot for a plant that would be using coal in particular.

It also would be ideally located, Mr. Chairman, to be able to provide energy, electricity for the proposed new development at Lake St. Joe, which would be north of Atikokan. It would also be able to provide direct access to the town of Atikokan on the west and provide power up north to Ignace, Sioux Lookout and the Lake St. Joe and Sturgeon Lake areas.

So I would like to suggest to the minister that because of the ideal location of Atikokan and because of other problems that that community may have because of the mining situation there in the future, this would be an industry that could well be located in the township of Atikokan.

The other matter I would like to speak on briefly, Mr. Chairman, I raise by way of --

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): May I answer that?

Mr. Reid: Yes, if you would.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Atikokan was not one of the 11 sites, I think, around Thunder Bay which were originally considered, and I think the member is aware that there have been suggestions from Geraldton, Nipigon and, more latterly, Atikokan. I’m told that these locations are being looked at and one at Dog Lake -- I’m not sure where Dog Lake is.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): It is in my riding.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In northwestern Ontario? With particular reference to Atikokan, the member for Rainy River should know that he has a great friend and supporter -- and he wouldn’t really believe this -- in the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman).

Mr. Reid: For Atikokan being the location?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am just saying that he should know he has allies in high places.

Mr. Reid: I’m certainly glad to hear that. Can the minister indicate when such a decision might be made?

Mr. Foulds: If I had an ally like that, I’d know my case was destroyed. I’d be nervous about it if I were the hon. member.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate when a decision might be made on that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hydro is still very much in the process of public participation and until that is concluded really won’t arrive at a timetable. I’m guessing, but it will probably be three, four or five months -- something like that.

Mr. Reid: Okay, fine. I thank the minister for his answer, Mr. Chairman.

The other thing is in relation to the matter I raised during the question period in connection with the fantastic industry that is going to become available in regard to nuclear plants. As the minister knows, but some of the members of the House may not be aware, most of the plants will be built in Ontario and Quebec, as I understand it, and probably very few will be built anywhere else in Canada.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: New Brunswick.

Mr. Reid: New Brunswick perhaps, yes. I understand, though, that the possible associated industry could be in the $60-billion to $100-billion bracket to provide for these plants. And it bothers me immensely that Canada and the Province of Ontario, which developed the technology, may not be in a position to take advantage of this market both in Canada and when the process is sold outside of Canada.

The minister has indicated that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) is looking at this matter, but I would suggest that this is a much better programme for the people of Ontario to get into than, say, GO-Urban, and that the minister should use his good offices to come up with a programme to provide those industries that will in fact make the components for the nuclear plants.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Better than Minaki?

Mr. Reid: Better than Minaki, believe me.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York South.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Chairman, I have four areas generally in the policy jurisdiction that I would like to raise with the minister. Some of them I engaged him in somewhat successfully or unsuccessfully in that distant past when we got going on these estimates. I’d like to return to them.

The first one is that during the course of the minister’s response to my leadoff statement, he got on his little political podium and delivered some ideological pronouncements, which quite frankly I think were fairly close to garbage. I don’t really believe that the minister believes as he says, and if he does it is rather a serious lapse from his normally intelligent appreciation of topics, even when he doesn’t happen to agree with them.

For example, without particularly wanting to revive the argument but just to set the context, let me give you two quotes from the instant Hansard; I haven’t checked them in the actual printed Hansard. Said the minister, “I will tell you very simply. I am not a socialist. I believe in a profit. I believe in a return on investment. That separates us and we really can’t talk about our problems.” That’s what I call opting out -- “We really can’t talk about our problems.” The chasm is so great that even the Minister of Energy, energetic as he is, can’t bridge it.

Secondly he said, “I’m not here to apologize and I will not apologize for the oil companies.” That one really mystifies me when I take some quotes from his numerous speeches across the province. How he can describe them as not apologies for the oil companies disturbs me a bit.

However, within that context, I want to raise with the minister a very interesting article which was carried in the Globe and Mail under the byline of Norman Webster on June 15, 1973, in which the Globe and Mail reporter solicited the minister’s views with regard to the development of the tar sands in Alberta. He intimates in the lead paragraph that it’s one of the possibilities that the Ontario government will be considering in the coming decade as it looks for larger and more secure energy supplies, namely that Ontario should be involved in it. Let me quote just two or three paragraphs; this is the minister:

“There are going to be places where the government, having gone through all other alternatives, will have to say, ‘Okay, we’ll have to put up the bucks because this is so important.’”

But Mr. McKeough noted that Mr. Lougheed had also said that he wants Canadian ownership of the oil sands.

“We would try to help them find Canadian investors and we might have to help them directly. It may be that Alberta would want to spread the risk and want Ontario as a partner if it couldn’t get the money for investment privately.”

Incidentally, by way of interjection, I haven’t been particularly impressed with Peter Lougheed’s efforts to get Canadian money in Syncrude. If there ever was a consortium of multinational corporations all of whom were American, that’s it -- clear-cut and simple.

However, to continue:

“It is no small matter, Mr. McKeough notes, that the price tag on plants to develop the oil sands runs to $600 or $700 million each.

“It’s a large sum, but Mr. McKeough said he is prepared to contemplate such outlays because of the stakes involved. Ontario depends on outside sources for 80 per cent of its energy and if radical measures are necessary to secure future assured supplies, so be it.

“Mr. McKeough would not draw the line, for example, at buying an oil company. ‘As a last resort.’”

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I’d like one, too.

Mr. MacDonald: To continue:

“He said the Quebec government is talking about building a refinery and ‘I think about that some days.’ Mr. McKeough’s thoughts are not yet government policy” --

I hate to interrupt the House leader.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): You haven’t.

Mr. MacDonald: I’ll go on:

“Mr. McKeough’s thoughts are not yet government policy but they are much more than the musings of an academic futurist.”

I’d like to discover exactly what they are. If these are the musings of an academic futurist they are in striking contrast to the unqualified profession of support for free enterprise and the vigorous condemnation of what is normally described as a socialist approach to solutions.

I’d like to solicit from the minister how much of this futuristic musing that he engaged in with Norman Webster is likely to become reality? Perhaps more specifically, what stage has the minister’s thinking reached in terms of his feeling that there is need for the government of the Province of Ontario to reach out into other provinces and even down into the United States by way of purchase of energy sources or solid options on energy sources for the foreseeable future?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think I have anything to add to what I said to Mr. Webster a year ago. I would take the position that my position hasn’t changed. Whereas a year ago I was speaking as a parliamentary assistant, I think those words which the member has read would reflect the views of the government. Certainly, I don’t think I would change any of them particularly here today.

With reference to specifics, I am not in a position to indicate to the House that we are about to buy an oil company or put $1 billion into a tar sands plant. Those are two examples that are used. I could tell him that there are a number of things being pursued from time to time and when we have something more definite it will be announced here in the House.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, I suppose we will have to bide our time. But just by way of a final shot on this; does the minister really believe that all of that is in keeping with the traditional classic approach of free enterprise?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not completely, perhaps not a classical approach. The hon. member has characterized it that way, not I, myself. What I have said is that if the private sector is not able to do or is not doing the job, then there very definitely is a role for government.

Mr. MacDonald: So it is just possible that free enterprise plays with socialism as much as the minister alleges socialists play with “free enterprise” in recognizing the role for profits. Would he concede that in a quiet moment of rational reflection?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I wouldn’t.

Mr. MacDonald: He wouldn’t. Well, we will leave the matter then.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I didn’t follow it that closely and therefore don’t want to easily agree with the member.

Mr. MacDonald: I would like to pursue in similar vein the minister’s reflections as they were given to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen at a meeting in Calgary, Alta. on April 16, 1974. The minister was reflecting on the rather urgent need for Ontario to secure its supplies of natural gas in the future. He pointed out that there is some problem in terms of that assurance and he indicated that there are two alternatives. The first alternative is to increase production from the westerly sedimentary basin, largely in Alberta. The second one was to move into the new sources, the Mackenzie Valley, the Arctic islands and the possible gasification of coal. On the next page in his text he said:

“The most apparent simple procedure would be to divert this natural gas that we now export to the United States in order to meet Ontario’s needs and to add it to the supplies available to domestic users in Canada. I will not deny that the day may come when I could find no alternative in the short-term interests of the consumers of eastern Canada but to ally myself with those who advocate such a procedure. Canada, perhaps, should not have committed the additional exports that we did in 1970.”

Later again on the next page, however, he comes to the conclusion that:

“Curtailing exports is obviously a desperate last resort. It doesn’t need to come to that at the present time.”

Well, the point I want to raise with the minister is surely that line of reasoning and that conclusion begs the real question or the real point in this whole problem. The real point is that if we are going to export all of the less expensive natural gas that is available now in Alberta and replace it with the much more expensive natural gas far up in the Arctic, which is going to be brought down by the Mackenzie pipeline, as the Minister of Energy in the Province of Ontario and with the role of protecting that consumer from unnecessary price increases, I suggest the minister is not fulfilling his job.

If one goes back to that observation of the minister’s with regard to the questionable advisability of increasing those exports in 1970 to the extent that we did to the United States, haven’t we got one of the keys to the problem that the minister is avoiding.

As Eric Kierans has pointed out -- and he gained some fairly significant headlines on it -- in 1970, in the self-serving ways that the companies provided statistics -- and the governments have unquestionably used them -- they accepted the evidence of the gas companies to the effect that there was such a surplus of gas in Canada that there was not any possibility of endangering the supply; we could export more to the United States.

The same companies are now arguing that we are faced with a prospective shortage and are taking the opposite thrust, that we need to build a pipeline in order to get supplies from the Arctic and up the Mackenzie Valley to replace those diminishing reserves that you find in the Province of Alberta. Right?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I was there when Mr. Kierans made that speech. I think to some extent it is criticism of the board on that issue, and perhaps somewhat unfair. It is perhaps academic in any case, because it happened in 1970 and it is water under the bridge.

The fact is -- and you have read part of his speech -- the board in fact did not accept the figures that were put in front of them by the industry. I have forgotten the figures and they are too large in any case. But the board had done their own studies; the board had the figures of the Alberta board, the industry presentation; the board substantially cut those figures and decided there still was a surplus, an allowable surplus, and allowed it. But they didn’t accept -- and this is the mistake, I think, with great respect, that Mr. Kierans made, in saying that the board had accepted the industry’s figures. In fact they didn’t. They arrived at their own conclusions, from their own sources, some of which would be the industry, some the Alberta board.

Part of what the problem has been since 1970 is that the rate of find has not been what I think the board, the industry, and others thought it would be.

Historically, we have been adding about 2.5 tcf as a reserve in the western sedimentary basin, and that has not happened since 1970. It has fallen off quite dramatically, and that is part of the reason that we are in trouble. The estimates of demand in 1970 are just about on -- at least what was estimated in 1970, as I understand it, is just about what is being used today -- the demand estimates were all right, but the supply estimates, because of the lack of rate of find, have proved not to be as good as expected. I just make that point, and I’ll come back to your pricing point in a minute --

Mr. MacDonald: Are you suggesting that the decision for export of greater quantities of natural gas in 1970 was based on the likely prospect that our reserves would be added to each year by that quantity, and we have dropped off?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, I was under the impression that the board normally has operated on the assumption of granting export permits only on the basis of proven reserves that we know for dead certain we have got.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And they make projections based on an historic finding rate, and that historic finding rate has not held up.

Mr. MacDonald: We are talking at cross purposes. My point, and I may be wrong -- if I am wrong, I ask the minister to correct me -- but my understanding was that the board gave export permits not on the prospective finding rate based on any historical standards, but on the basis of proven reserves. And on the basis of proven reserves, they either took the company’s figures or their own figures, or the Alberta board’s figures, and have made a miscalculation which has now gotten them into a reverse kind of argument, namely that we have got to develop the Mackenzie line and all the northern sources of gas in order to compensate for the inadequacies in the sedimentary basin in Alberta.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): All the expensive sources.

Mr. MacDonald: Right, all the expensive sources.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let me put it this way -- and I’m a little out of my depth as well -- the National Energy Board Act requires the board to look at the rate of discovery. Even aside from that, let’s assume for the moment that what they found in 1970 was correct and that there was a surplus then. Since there hasn’t been the same rate of find as was expected from 1970 until now, there is today not a surplus. Do you follow me on that score? I think there are variations of that, but that is essentially what I am saying.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay, let me come back, let’s not quibble on that, because I see the qualification that the minister is introducing and whether or not it was done on the basis of proven reserves or prospective reserves, on the basis of historic finds, is a secondary concern.

The thing that rather puzzles me about the all-out support that the minister has given on behalf of the Province of Ontario for the Mackenzie Valley line is, how can the government support this application when all the information to be placed before the board, and particularly that related to the proven reserves, is not yet available? There is no indication as yet that the project, the Mackenzie Valley line, is economically feasible, that its huge capital requirements wouldn’t disrupt Canada’s economic development, or that it wouldn’t cause irreparable damage to the tender environment.

The minister is always emphasizing these as prerequisites for any kind of energy development. How come you come out with an unqualified support for that when we are about to get the evidence as to whether or not these necessary prerequisites are going to be met?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ll come back to that point. You raised the question of price in terms of substituting higher priced frontier gas or coal gasification as opposed to what we are exporting to the States now, which is at a lower price, though not that much lower due to recent decisions in Alberta, but something lower.

There are section 11(a) hearings which have been concluded now by the National Energy Board on the price of gas for export, and in our intervention and in our argument we raised those questions exactly as the member has raised them. In effect, we raised the question of a two-price system and we very definitely raised the point in the intervention of the possibility of pricing exports today at the replacement cost when it comes from the frontier. I don’t know what the board will decide on all that.

The board and government policy has been that exports -- and this varies from month to month, depending on where contracts stand -- essentially are priced at 105 per cent of the domestic price. I don’t think that is good enough today, leaving aside for the minute who gets the extra price and whether the producer, Alberta or the consumer in Ontario gets the benefit of it. I don’t think 105 per cent is good enough.

One reason is that Union Gas brought gas from the panhandle -- at one point I think they were bringing half their gas from the panhandle -- this was away back. The tariff then established by the FPC in the States was that Union would pay in Windsor 120 per cent of what was being charged in Detroit and across the border. It strikes me that if 120 per cent was right in one case, 105 is wrong in the other. It may be more than that. As I say, we did raise in our intervention the whole question of pricing the exports at a replacement cost.

To say that I have wholeheartedly supported the pipeline from the Arctic I think is an over-simplification. Based on what has been put in front of the Alberta board, in front of the National Energy Board, our own studies, AGE, Hydro, everybody, we would say that by the 1980s, gas is going to be needed from some other source other than the western sedimentary basin. That gas might come from -- and I said this in the speech -- the Arctic, might come from the delta and could come, if the economics were right at that point, from the gasification of coal. It would be our best guess that the most economic and most sensible place for it to come from, when it is needed in the 1980s, will be from the delta. On that basis, we say the pipeline is going to be needed.

Those circumstances could change. If, for example, El Paso have their day and make their point then, so we are told, the economics of gas from the delta would change dramatically. If you were just bringing Canadian gas out and perhaps only to Canadian markets, if that is the size of the reserve, that could make -- and this is hypothetical at this moment -- enough change in the economics that the gasification of coal might be more economic than bringing gas in from the delta at that point in time.

That’s a decision which will have to be made as those facts unfold. We are studying what’s been filed, along with everybody else, and that is mainly environmental and social rather than what you were just talking about in terms of what will be in the filing which will go before the Energy Board as opposed to before the Berger hearings.

From the knowledge we have our best guess is that the gas is going to be needed; it’s necessary and it’s the best place to get it. We attach and will attach, if we ultimately intervene, and I expect we will, in the Mackenzie hearings -- we will change our mind perhaps along the way but at this moment I would say, “Yes, we support it. We think it’s the best place and we want to hear the evidence.” We reserve the right to change our mind but we do want to be assured that the social and economic costs are all taken into account; that the damage to the environment is minimized; that the environment is protected; and in reverse order -- I think this is perhaps the most important thing -- that the native rights question is settled and settled to their satisfaction.

You can interpret all that as enthusiastic -- no, all-out -- support. I would say there is a lot of qualifications and there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge before it’s all-out support. At this moment, looking that far ahead, I would say that’s the best bet.

Mr. MacDonald: My colleague from Thunder Bay has a related question. If we can deal with it tidily I’ll give the floor to him momentarily.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to pursue this a bit further with the minister having visited the Mackenzie delta area, particularly Inuvik, and found out what the feeling was of the Chamber of Commerce in that part of the Northwest Territories, and having talked to people with the Arctic Research Centre up there. They wanted to know when the new Minister of Energy for Ontario was going to visit that area and become actively involved in endorsing such a project for the orderly exploitation of the known reserves in the Mackenzie delta. I have talked privately with the minister who said at that point he was leaving his options open and, although giving tacit support for the general overall concept, he did have some reservations and wanted the right to change his mind if there were more attractive alternatives.

In the light of the possibility of it being the best source of energy -- an assured supply of natural gas at a reasonable rate -- do you not think it is advisable to enter into negotiations with these companies, to get in on the ground floor, to invest some of our dollars in that -- as has been suggested that possibly you might do with uranium and the amount of dollars committed by Ontario Hydro over a lengthy period of time with US Steel for an assured supply of low sulphur coal for its thermo-generating stations? Have you given any thought to hedging against inflation for the future by buying a piece of the action in the Mackenzie delta area?

I think it is quite obvious it is only a matter of time before you are going to be looking forward to that source of natural gas. It is just a question of timing and what other alternatives might present themselves in the short-term. I think it is quite obvious that in the long run you are going to have to go to that source, however expensive it might be and whatever the social consequences might be which must, of necessity, be resolved with the native people.

In that light there seems to be a move for governments to get involved in much the same way as the federal government has been involved with Panarctic in the far north. Don’t you think it would be at least worthwhile exploring the possibilities of making a significant investment in that kind of undertaking so that in the distant future -- maybe not too distant -- you will be able to say, “As a result of decisions taken by the hon. Darcy McKeough in 1974 and 1975, we do have an assured supply of very vital energy. We were able to effect a good deal as a result of our foresight in getting some Ontario dollars in on the ground floor, which stood us in good stead for a steady supply of clean energy at reasonable rates”?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hon. member is right on.

Mr. MacDonald: He is trying to establish your place in history.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer to your question is yes. There is a variety of ways in which it could be done; our thinking didn’t just happen in 1974-1975, it goes back into 1973. There is a variety of ways. We are dealing with two problems. The short-term problem, over perhaps the next five years, in terms of Alberta, and obviously we are looking beyond that. Then we are looking perhaps a step beyond that in terms of our participation in Polar Gas. Any of these things might change at some point, but that would seem to be the sequence of events at this moment.

The answer to your question is yes. I think I’ve said -- if I haven’t, I’ll say so now -- we are giving more than a little consideration to an energy corporation, which might do some of these things. We will have to reach a decision reasonably quickly on how this might be done; one alternative is to use the Ontario utilities, which have more than a little interest in doing what the member has just described. TransCanada also has some interest. But that comes back to us since the Energy Board has asked for direction -- and, frankly, I’m not disclosing anything -- because the three Ontario utilities have included in their rate base applications roughly $2.2 million each at this moment, I think -- it goes up, I guess, $100,000 a month -- which is their share to date for their participation in Gas Arctic.

The board feels properly, I think, that it would like some policy direction from the government as to whether that participation in that pipeline or related ventures, perhaps including the prepayments for gas, for example -- whether those things or part of them can be included in the rate base and how.

Regarding the amounts of money we are talking about -- and we are talking about the pipeline -- if the pipeline proceeds, I think the three Ontario utilities are or would be committed. This was at a $5-billion figure, and the cost has escalated to $7 billion, at this moment, I guess, or is getting close to $7 billion. They felt their share of the equity, as I recall, would be $50 million or $60 million each, which is not a small sum for our three utilities, which are not multi-national oil companies. They are big companies, but they are not in the big leagues.

If we are to have Canadian ownership of the pipeline, which is a stated government of Canada policy, then I think their participation is very important, because those are three Canadian-owned companies. Beyond that, if they do that, then do they have anything left over to invest, as the member has said, or perhaps prepay or take over some options in the Arctic? I’m not sure that they do.

Even if we said yes to the rate base, I do not think that would be the end of it. I suspect we may well end up saying, “Look at the possibility of putting some of this in the rate base.” And that doesn’t scare me.

Today’s natural gas user in Ontario is really paying very little for tomorrow’s gas supply, compared with today’s oil user. I don’t know what the figure would be, but today’s gasoline user is probably paying five cents a gallon to find the oil which may be used by his children or his grandchildren. It doesn’t particularly scare me that today’s gas user might pick up some of that cost in the rate base. The alternative is for us to do it directly, and I don’t preclude that.

That’s a long answer to your question, but I am simply saying that what the member is suggesting, we have very much in mind. How it is going to be worked out, I do not know.

Mr. MacDonald: If I may, I would like to pick up directly from what the hon. minister has stated, because I had some further points in mind in that connection.

Among his futuristic musings in the past, if I understood them correctly, I have noted some comments of the minister to the effect that Ontario might be interested in a pipeline from the eastern Arctic that would come close to Hudson Bay. In fact, in that connection, on one occasion he was even quoted in the press as lending some credence to the proposition that maybe the answer for bringing oil down was air tankers of massive proportions and things of that nature.

May I ask the minister, not only specifically with regard to that, if I am correct in stating that the future out-of-province supplies that the government is contemplating now are possibly the Athabasca tar sands, with our involvement, possibly the Mackenzie delta, possibly the eastern Arctic -- and by entering into long-term contracts we have an assurance of coal supplies down in Pennsylvania for Hydro?

Does that wrap up the picture as it appears now? Did I get the minister correctly when he said that we are contemplating in Ontario supposedly our equivalent of -- what do they call it, PetroCan, Petroleum Canada -- at the national level?

Mr. Foulds: Oil-Can.

Mr. Stokes: Oil-Can.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, that would be the more appropriate one, but I think it is going by the name PetroCan, Petroleum Canada. Are we going to have a Petro-Ont., an energy corporation for Ontario to co-ordinate the involvement of Ontario government and/or the utilities in all of these out-of-province developments?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know the answer to that question, and I have probably said too much here. It is simply what is going through our mind and what we are looking at -- and the simple answer to the member’s question is that I don’t know at this moment. We could use the vehicle of the Ontario Development Corp., for example, or I guess NODC might be more appropriate.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), as the member is aware, is talking about the possibility of a mining corporation. We might use that vehicle rather than a separate vehicle. We could certainly use the vehicle of Ontario Hydro itself. Those are possibilities and they are under consideration and I simply don’t know where we may end up.

The member -- let me pick something up of what he said, too -- mentioned the tar sands, for example. That would be a little bit lower on my list of priorities, simply because we know nothing about oil. At some point, we have got to learn. Lord knows, we have learned a lot in the last six months.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Why then was the minister out in Calgary advising them to go into tar sands?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Through the Energy Board’s regulation of the utilities, and through our regulation of the utilities in Ontario, I think we know more about gas. And gas, of course, is nearly as important to Ontario, dollar-wise, usage-wise, as is oil; just about as important -- unlike the other provinces. Gas is really a very small factor in the Province of Quebec; it has an oil economy. It is a big factor here.

For that reason, because we know a little bit more about it, I am frank to admit that we have been exploring how we secure longer term gas supplies than we have oil, and that leads into the tar sands. We have no technology in Ontario or no great knowledge in Ontario. Alberta says we have the money, and I suppose that’s a possibility. I don’t preclude that, but I put that a little bit down lower at the present moment.

Mr. MacDonald: What about the eastern Arctic? Is that gas or oil, or both?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Gas to begin with, and perhaps oil. Really, they have done as well there in finding it as they have in the delta to date. The other thing that should be mentioned on that list -- and there are some other things, too -- but the one I would specifically mention is western coal; and one might include that in that package. Again, it would be through Hydro, or again through a separate agency. The west is very anxious to sell us coal, but it’s the chicken and egg thing, I think. In fairness, when Hydro went out to look for it, they had difficulty getting even the amount for the test burn this summer, which is only half a million tons. They went to two sources, BC and Alberta, and got a quarter of a million tons in each place.

If we went for western coal, if it became economic -- and we are exploring the Shellpak pipeline, which originally was conceived for oil-coal; now the studies are heading in the direction of water-coal, a water-coal slurry. We have been working on unit trains for some time and particularly through MTC. There is the possibility of unit trains to the Lakehead; the building of port and unloading facilities there -- I think in the neighbourhood of $50 or $60 million. These are not in sequence. I am just throwing things at the member.

Mr. Sargent: What about lignite?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But when we go to look for coal in western Canada, it just isn’t there. Somebody is going to have to spend a considerable amount of money. Alberta recognizes this, and I think BC does as well; BC is perhaps a bit ahead of Alberta. They are going to have to spend a lot of money and there is lead time involved in opening those mines because we are looking at an output of -- the output the pipeline would probably depend on -- well, the last figure I heard was that they were talking of something like 15 million tons a year to justify a pipeline for example.

Hydro in two or three years will be up to 13 million or 14 million tons of coal. The last purchase in the States was three million. We think, quite frankly, that we might trade that with something else. That’s tying down three million tons and there are some other contracts which run out, but the 14 million or 15 million tons -- and some of it may be used by the steel industry -- doesn’t scare anybody.

But it is chicken and egg to this extent, that Hydro, as the biggest single user in Ontario, is going to have to make a commitment before the mines open and start gearing up for that sort of thing; or the other way around, as Hydro would say, the mines have got to have the coal before we can make the commitment. The two things have to come together.

I don’t think I would be betraying any confidence when I say that we discussed this with the Alberta Minister of Mines the last time we were in Alberta, two weeks ago yesterday -- well, when I made the speech to the landmen’s association -- and he recognizes these problems. You are talking about small companies and small mines -- something has got to bring them together -- and he indicated that coal might be something which they would very logically bring under their marketing scheme.

Mr. MacDonald: Have you come to any conclusions on the northern Ontario lignite deposits?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, that study has been completed. The Minister of Natural Resources -- I think it is at the printer’s.

Mr. MacDonald: Hydro is enthusiastic, I take it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hydro is enthusiastic, yes. I think we had better wait until the study comes in.

Mr. MacDonald: For burning directly or gasification?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: For burning directly to make -- I have looked at that --

Mr. Stokes: On-site generation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, for on-site generation, and -- I will go this far -- if you compare the cost of on-site generation there with other thermal plants, it compares favourably and it is viable.

If you compare it with a nuclear plant for peaking -- for base load power, it isn’t viable. That is something we have to sort out. We also have to put a price-tag, I think, on what that kind of development means in the north in terms of regional development and attracting people. I don’t think any of these things, frankly, make economic sense.

I don’t think, with respect, the road to Moosonee which we have started on makes sense. I don’t think the electrification of Moosonee by direct line power makes economic sense, but that is going to cost $4 million or $5 million before we are through. I don’t think the extension of the railway six miles, or further, makes economic sense on its own. But if you put these things together and make a government commitment and investment, then sooner or later you start to generate something that does make economic sense.

Mr. Stokes: It becomes a vehicle, then.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s right, and I think we have to be reasonably gutsy in our approach to these things. My impression of how my colleagues feel is that we have such an approach. Whether we go ahead with the lignite or not, I don’t know or how soon, but that report will be here, and I think the Minister of Natural Resources will have something to say about it at the time.

The member mentioned gasification. I asked to have a look at that -- there isn’t enough proven lignite to justify a plant. You need a lot more coal or lignite than anyone would presently say is at Onakowana. It would be expensive. I have forgotten the figure.

Mr. Sargent: It is working in Chicago. Tests down there now have indicated it’s practical to use lignite.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Gasification of coal is not a new technology. Germany fought a war pretty successfully, really, without petroleum and without natural gas; it came from coal. The technology is not new, it is simply a question of expense, but I am told by the utilities and from the rough studies we did that there isn’t enough coal there to justify gasification at this moment.

Mr. MacDonald: Before I leave this topic, just a couple of brief items and nitty-gritty. Is Ralph Hedlin a member of the staff of your ministry?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He consults to the ministry.

Mr. MacDonald: He consults with the ministry.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He is not full-time.

Mr. MacDonald: He is on contract?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. MacDonald: Am I correct that he also works full-time or part-time with the Canadian Arctic Gas Ltd.?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: To my knowledge he has done some work for them. But not full-time.

Mr. MacDonald: Not full-time?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When he works for us he’s certainly not full-time, no.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, I am rather curious about this kind of relationship. Is it true that he writes speeches for you?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He does a great number of things for us, including writing speeches, yes.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, I just raise, as unprovocatively as I can with the minister, category 2 -- the Sunoco Building being category 1 -- the proposition of a consultant -- you shake your head, but, by heavens, you are the guy who should recognize this, and I thought you had. I am just trying to see if I can’t get you back onto the straight and narrow -- a man who is a consultant or part-time on the staff of Canadian Arctic is also a consultant for the government and conceivably writing the minister’s speeches. I wonder if he wrote the speech about the Mackenzie Valley gas supplies?

Also, in the same area of provocative nitty-gritty, is it true that William Kelly, that man little known to the Tory party, has formed a pipeline construction company and is in line for a construction subcontract from Arctic pipeline?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. MacDonald: Not to your knowledge? Well, you might like to check it out to find out whether there is anything in it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I have no interest in checking it out. You might like to check it out, but I am not going to.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, okay.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just to set the record straight as far as Mr. Hedlin is concerned, he had a discussion with the deputy minister some months ago. He may well have done some work for us before the discussion was held -- I don’t want to mislead the member that way -- but he and the deputy had a discussion, the deputy came to the conclusion that there was no conflict in the work which he was doing on a consulting basis for Gas Arctic; I think it was in the area of native rights, but I am not sure of that.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, I want to --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps you will be satisfied there is no conflict.

Mr. MacDonald: On that basis you are satisfied?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes.

I want to raise briefly with the minister the whole kick that he and everybody was on a year or so ago with regard to conservation of energy, because I have the impression, perhaps falsely or inaccurately, that that was a fad of the day or the hour and it rather got lost in the shuffle. I was interested in looking through some of our clippings to discover a comment of the minister in Strathroy, pretty close to home, back in March 13, 1973, where he spoke of the painful programmes that the province was going to have to get into in terms of conserving energy, there was need for a vast public education programme. You will recall that when this was the fad of the hour, there were ads taken in the paper and, was it 48 points of energy conservation that were suggested for the guidance of the people of the Province of Ontario?

Where do we stand on this whole programme? Specifically, the most fatuous of all of the efforts in this connection, in my view, was the temporary entry of the Minister of Industry and Tourism where he sent out proposals to the industry across this province and suggested, for example, that each industry should set up an energy conservation committee within the plants to meet frequently and to investigate every energy usage and decide on ways and means of effecting reductions. How many of these energy conservation committees have been set up, what has happened to that multipoint programme that you spent public moneys on in advertising and where are you on your whole conservation kick now? Has it died?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, no, the member doesn’t read my speeches. He would find that I spoke in Guelph --

Mr. Stokes: It is hard to keep up.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- the other night to the agrologists and the theme was conservation. I spoke to the Ontario Motor League two weeks ago tomorrow; that was very definitely a conservation speech.

The member should recall the speech that I made to the Automotive Transport Association -- which did not endear me to them -- which dealt with conservation. They followed up very definitely on my thought that we should be working much harder on intermodal transfers, and that in some instances -- from the point of view of energy conservation and from a number of other points of view too; environmentally generally -- perhaps we might be putting less emphasis on truck transport than we should be on rail transport.

There have been a couple of other speeches which have arisen directly out of what we are thinking and doing in the ministry. It certainly isn’t dead.

One of the first people we took on after the ministry was formed and the deputy was hired -- he must have been the third or fourth person -- was a chap named Kirk Brown, Dr. Kirk Brown, who works for ORF. He will be with us, I think, on a year’s contract which may or may not be renewed; I simply don’t know. He has been pursuing a number of conservation ideas with other ministries and within the ministry.

We have a draft report within the ministry, and we are still going over it, covering -- well, I’ll read some of the headings in it: The Need; Our Work with Other Ministries; With External Agencies; An Energy Conservation Model; Education -- and that is going on; The Advertising Campaign -- whether to pursue it again and I think we probably will; School Programmes; Colleges and Universities; Reduced End Consumption; there is a whole host of headings.

I can’t put this in front of the House yet but I think we will be. We have been working with the Ontario Association of Architects, who have been in on several occasions; they have some ideas. I don’t know whether it is them or someone else who would like us to fund some work and we have been giving some thought to that and, really, trying to encourage OHC to fund something there.

Mr. MacDonald: What about the plant energy conservation committees?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The plant energy conservation committees? A number of them have been set up. I am not as familiar with that as I should be and the member should ask the ministry concerned about that. The last thing that happened that I am aware of -- or is current and there were questions in the House -- is the joint programme of Ontario Hydro, which Lord knows we supported and encouraged, and Industry and Tourism. It is a series of 12 half-day seminars with lunch, I remember that being mentioned here, at a cost of $5.

Mr. Foulds: Each or overall?

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Last of the big-time spenders.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: From what I hear, in terms of industry a number of industries are making serious attempts to look at their energy costs. Some of them have casually mentioned to us some savings they have already effected and, as the price goes up, they are going to be looking at this much more seriously.

Basically, I think what I should say is that the conservation programme is alive and well and kicking. I think it is also fair to say that when I wrote my report last June, I would have guessed we would have been somewhat further ahead with being able to put something in front of you.

Dr. Brown, I think, has worked not in splendid isolation from the ministry but from the minister; we haven’t given it the attention that, frankly, I thought we would have. On the other hand, last June we really didn’t think we would be quite as involved in oil wars and gas wars and a few other things which have developed. I don’t think we are quite as far ahead as I thought we might have been but it is alive and well. If we enter a more calm period, whenever that may be -- and I’m not sure when that may be --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- but a somewhat more placid period, I think we will be very much back to devoting more time to conservation.

Mr. Stokes: As a natural follow-up to that, can I ask the minister if he has looked recently at literature put out by Ontario Hydro? I noticed they have kept a pretty low profile on it.

I can remember quite vividly when I was a member of the OMEA, being appointed chairman of a load-building committee, and they said “Sell more electricity. It is your responsibility as a local commissioner to get out and sell more electricity with the “live better electrically slogan” and all the other jargon we used to have fed to us. It was done so we could effect economies of scale so that if we were producing so many mega-watts of power we were assured we were going to sell it all. Of course, if we effected the economies of scale, the unit cost of electric energy was going to be brought down.

As recently as a year ago, I had quite an argument because I was less than enthusiastic about my role in this programme. I mentioned it to officials at Ontario Hydro and they said, “It’s still valid. We have to be somewhat cautious as to how we present it to the people, but the concept that you’ve got to sell all you can produce in order to bring power to the consumer at the lowest possible rate is still valid.”

They have kept a low profile as a result of these inflationary costs that you speak of, but what have you said to Ontario Hydro about this? Have they convinced you that if you have the capacity for 100 megawatts of power that you must go out and sell to that limit in order to justify the expenditure and to make it a good viable operation? There’s a good deal of ambivalence in what the minister says and what Ontario Hydro has been doing and saying for a good number of years. Have you had a chat with them about it? Have you been able to convince them that it is wise to conserve because it isn’t a bottomless pit, regardless of how you generate energy?

It may be folly to convert one form of fuel into another form to make it usable, notwithstanding the environmental consequences. I think this is something that your Ministry of Energy has to take a good long look at. If you take a block of fuel and convert it into something else that in turn makes electric energy, you may be making use of about 40 per cent of the Btu potential. These are the kinds of things that you’ve got to get at and make sure that we are, in fact, conserving our energy resources. They are really not a renewable sort of thing unless you’re going to start going back to square one and start burning wood all over again. I think this is something that the ministry, and the minister in particular, should take a good hard look at.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, we have. We’ve certainly discussed this matter from time to time with Ontario Hydro. I’m not sure that they are altogether convinced. I’m not sure that they’ve --

Mr. Stokes: I got that impression myself.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- completely convinced me. But I think the important thing is, to answer the member’s question, that the advertising, the promotion of selling more and more electricity has certainly, at the Ontario Hydro level, disappeared completely -- and I think in nearly all the utilities.

Mr. Stokes: But the philosophy has not disappeared.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Some of the little brochures you’ve mentioned, you read them and you would think that energy conservation was Ontario Hydro’s idea completely and that they didn’t get it from anyplace else. No, I really shouldn’t say that with Hydro people sitting here.

Mr. MacDonald: You are being provocative again.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is a matter which is, I know, of concern to the new board. I don’t think it’s going to be resolved overnight. If you’re talking nuclear power, for example -- unfortunately you’re not just talking nuclear power, you’re also talking thermal power, fossil fuel power -- but if you were just talking nuclear power there’s no question that you can run that plant full out 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and you’re going to have cheaper power per unit than you would if the plant is shut down part of the time.

The only fallacy in that argument, I would have to say to my friends from Hydro, or ex-Hydro, is that the country goes broke building the nuclear plants to achieve that cheap nuclear energy. There’s a cutoff point.

There are certainly arguments for the fact that because electrical energy has expanded at the rate that it has that we have achieved certainly, economies of scale and achieved, up until this morning at any rate, low-cost power. What Hydro are going to tell me is that the reason for the raise is that we’re conserving energy so much, they’re not selling as much any more and that’s the reason they have to raise their rates. There is just a little bit of truth in that, too -- a very little bit.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have one more item that I wanted to deal with, my fourth and final item, but if there are other people who want to deal with conservation and you want to tidy it up now, I am willing to yield the floor. I know my colleague here has a brief word.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): On this matter of conservation, Mr. Chairman, we’ve been talking about the conservation of fuel and cutting down on various things here today. The temperature of this room would seem to indicate that we are conserving a bit of energy in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): It is the air conditioning.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Shut it off and we would swelter.

Mr. Young: If it’s the air conditioning then, of course, that may be, I don’t know. But in any case, Mr. Chairman, my question deals with getting more energy out of the sources we have.

Just to use an example, I’m not aware of any real research that has gone on for a great many years -- that is, good research -- into the matter of better oil burners for residential homes and apartments. The type that is now being used is a type that has been in use for quite a long time, and it may be that something is happening here.

Britain has done some research on the larger burners. How much has been done in Canada or by the oil companies, I don’t know, because the oil companies themselves are not particularly interested in that kind of research. They are selling oil. And the more inefficient the burners may be, the more oil they can sell, if they have the oil to sell.

How long the supply of oil will last I don’t know. We’ve had all kinds of figures, and I’m not going to go over them again. The Ontario Economic Review gave us a picture of how much oil, gas and coal the world has over the next period of time. Canada is one of the favoured nations, but not too highly favoured, and it would seem that except for coal, the next quarter century is going to see us completely out of that kind of energy.

But have we been doing any kind of real research, independent research, or have we been depending upon the oil companies to do the job? We can hardly expect them to do an efficient job in cutting down the amount of oil that they would sell and, at the same time, getting far more energy from that particular sale.

In the same way, from watching TV and reading bits and pieces of articles, I’ve learned in recent days that the motor car companies are now beginning to talk about research into getting more miles per gallon out of the gasoline we put into our tanks. Is this in effect going on? Is real study and real research going on in this field?

Then, to use one more illustration, insulation in our homes in the Province of Ontario, across Canada, in a northern climate where lack of insulation means waste of fuel oil or energy in whatever form we use to heat those homes. Is the new National Building Code calling for sufficient insulation to do the job and will governments at that point insist on adequate insulation since we are told that properly insulated homes will mean much less energy consumed?

Home builders are not going to put the insulation in there unless it is demanded of them, because this is an area where competing home building firms can save money. They can put a cheaper product on the market and sell that cheaper product to greater advantage than the company that does a good job of insulation.

And even though, over the years, the advantage may be to the company with the insulation, as far as the consumer is concerned, the consumer who is comparing prices at that point perhaps is not too aware of the saving that might come over the years he occupies that home.

Have we this kind of research going on into the insulation of buildings? And is there a willingness on the part of government to set standards so that we do save energy in this field?

These are just a few illustrations of how this might be done. In other words, my emphasis is not so much on the other type of conservation we’ve been talking about as on getting far more results from the raw materials expended in terms of energy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, I think a great deal is going on. I haven’t anything that I can put in front of the member formally, but the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is doing some work. There is work being done at ORF -- not by us, but for various companies. The equipment manufacturers themselves do work. Hydro is doing work for example, in terms of the heat pump.

On insulation, we’ve signed letters just a couple of days ago. Representations are being made by Hydro and by us to the National Building Code people to upgrade the insulation standards. I think there is a great deal going on. The member says the oil companies aren’t doing it. The fact is that they are doing a great deal of work but there is a great deal of work being done by others as well.

Whether enough is being done in terms of the generation of electricity is a debatable point. Of course, that’s where the greatest energy loss is; something in the neighbourhood of 65 per cent is probably being lost. Nobody has come up with solutions to that yet. The one positive result will be the fish hatchery next to Lennox as a use. People suggest that a very logical place to put a generating station would be in the riding of the member for Essex South (Mr. Paterson), next to the greenhouse industry. I think that’s something which should be looked at. There’s an enormous waste heat, as we all know, from a generating station. Unfortunately, if you are talking about a greenhouse area, and if you are talking about the south end of Essex county, you are talking about a very built-up area. I am not sure whether you could interpose a 400- or 500-acre generating station in the middle of that.

Mr. Young: You would have the power.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But you might have very cheap power for the greenhouse industry which bombards the member for Essex South and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), among others, with its great concern over the cost of fuel, and properly so. I simply don’t know whether those two things can be combined. I am reasonably satisfied that a great deal is being done in this area.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. MacDonald: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I had one more question I wanted to ask.

Mr. Chairman: I thought we would deal with the conservation matter before you continued.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I have a question. Because the water carriers, that is boats and steamships, consume only 500 Btu energy per ton-mile and the railroads are around 750 and trucks up around 2,400 and aeroplanes are out of sight, is the minister using any kind of persuasion to help the reduction of the tolls on the Seaway or even the elimination and, from the point of view of conserving energy, making that kind of travel more competitive economically?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I haven’t, no, but government policy is well known in that area in terms of our support over the years for minimum tolls. I don’t know if we have ever gone so far as to suggest the elimination of tolls on the Seaway, but certainly the government has been on record for a long time in terms of our support to the Seaway, not necessarily as a money-making or debt-retiring instrument.

I think the suggestion the member has made is that perhaps the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) or the Treasurer (Mr. White), who, I think, has usually taken the lead in that, should be examining that again in terms of implications for energy conservation. I think there’s a much broader area in terms of railroad haulage.

Mr. Burr: But don’t you think this gives you a reason, an added punch, to bring this up?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Burr: And will you do so?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I won’t. As I recall, the responsibility for the Seaway, as far as government policy has been concerned, has rested over the years with the Treasurer or the Minister of Transportation and Communications and we will draw it to their attention.

Mr. Burr: Thank you.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask one thing on conservation of energy. I understand that an Ontario building code is presently being drafted. I am wondering if you have sent any recommendations over to -- I believe it’s the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- in connection with insulation and other standards that should be incorporated in this code?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: The final policy area I want to raise is a brief return to the minister’s preoccupation with reprivatization. Let me make this clear. For the moment I am not going to pursue the argument as to the merits of reprivatization. The minister is persuaded of its validity; I have great and growing doubts. We will set that aside for the moment. I want to clarify certain aspects of the thing.

The minister’s rationale for reprivatization, as I understand it from reading some of his speeches is that the whole role of Hydro in recent years -- in the construction of dams, as one example -- has provided a technology that was picked up by private industry. And private industry literally has been able to go around the world, building dams for other countries, whereas Hydro perhaps could not become involved in that kind of an enterprise outside of our own jurisdiction.

As I understand it, the same kind of an approach is now being considered with regard at least to heavy water and, if one reads the task force report in general terms, with regard to other areas of technology. One question I would like to put to the minister is, what other specific areas of technology are you considering?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: None at the moment, other than heavy water.

Mr. MacDonald: None, other than heavy water. Well, my concern about this is that if we are handing over technology that has been developed at the expense of the public -- and I hope in handing it over we are going to get some equitable return to the public treasury for that -- but if we are handing it over, then it seems to me that private industry, in the use, development and application of that technology, inevitably is going to start to rob Hydro of key personnel who have been involved in the development and application of that technology. It seems to me just inevitable.

I don’t know what the average engineer’s salary is in Hydro, but I can bet my bottom dollar that if some big company wants to get an engineer and it costs $10,000 or $15,000 extra to peel that engineer off from Hydro and get him to that company so that they can pursue their entrepreneurial ways, that is dead likely to take place.

It seems to me that in the process we are going to start to dismantle the comprehensive nature of this public utility of which we have traditionally been so proud. Does the minister not really believe that there is some danger in that kind of development and if so, how is he going to correct it?

Another point in that connection, if I may put two or three of them to the minister: In the course of his press conference, when he unveiled the policy for make-or-buy, he conceded to the press conference that in the short run, energy costs would likely be higher. Then he expressed what I would deem to be a rather dubious hope, that ultimately they may be less.

It seems to me that if we hand this technology over and private enterprise, which everybody concedes is in there for a profit, is going to be involved, you are going to have a cost which is at least cost plus the profit. I just fail to understand how the minister feels that he is going to maintain the traditional power-at-cost principle of Hydro if he pursues that kind of thing.

I was rather interested, in reading through one of CUPE’s briefs, to note a quote from Merrill Dennison’s book on “The People’s Power,” a well-known history of Ontario Hydro. It reads as follows:

“No sooner had the new Conservative government taken office than Whitney proceeded to make an immediate down payment on his promises. Repeating a campaign statement that the ‘water power of Niagara should be as free as the air’ [that was a rather grandiose and generous statement; the Tories sometimes get a little flamboyant] he added, ‘and more than that, I say on behalf of the government that the water power all over the country should not in the future be made the sport and prey of capitalists and should not be treated as anything else but a valuable asset of the people of Ontario, whose trustees this government of the people are.’”

Mr. Stokes: Try and tell the people around Lake Nipigon that.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay. That was the narrow concept of water power, that it was going to be a resource owned, preserved and held in trust for the people.

It seems to me that the whole technology of Hydro is in the same category today. I just can’t be persuaded by the minister’s rather easy acceptance and vigorous pursuit of the reprivatization theme, that he is not only going to be dismantling Hydro but he is going to end up by something more than power at cost, the traditional principle on which it has been built and operated.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, let’s face it, there are philosophical differences between the hon. member and myself.

Mr. MacDonald: I said I am not interested in the philosophy. I am interested in these realities that will flow from the implementation of your philosophy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member has said, and I am not being provocative, that he believes that costs plus a profit will always equal a higher price.

Mr. Stokes: Well, Moores and I are on the same wavelength.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have to say to the member that we on this side of the House, in this party, and I think members of the Liberal Party, start from the premise that costs in the private sector plus a profit may well be cheaper, and probably is cheaper, than a socialized or nationalized industry.

Mr. Stokes: That is not what Moores told Brinco.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member doesn’t agree with that. I just say to him calmly that is a philosophical difference which we have.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is repudiating Beck, Whitney et al.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I just say there is a fundamental philosophical difference and leave it at that.

The other point that the member made was do I worry about industry raiding Hydro. No, I don’t. I suppose there might be a point where one would be worried about that. Hydro salaries, by the way, I think are excellent. I have heard industry say at the engineering level they are not competitive with Hydro, although I think some Hydro people would dispute that. You could argue that point.

I wouldn’t be worried though, if there was more interchange frankly between Hydro and the private sector. Some might describe that as some fresh air. I wouldn’t want to go that far. I wouldn’t worry if there was a little bit more interchange between Ontario Hydro and the private sector.

Mr. Stokes: You have alienated the OMEA, and now you are trying to alienate Ontario Hydro.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think that a little mixing up would be a bad idea.

Mr. Sargent: Both ways.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Both ways.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister something that has already been brought to his attention by one of the previous speakers, but I don’t think a reply from the minister has been forthcoming. That was the resolution originally passed by the utilities in the town of Oakville concerning Hydro, its representation on the new corporation and the selling of shares in the new corporation. I’m fairly certain that the member from the area has let the minister know of the Oakville Public Utilities Commission’s concern, and the resolution they passed.

I bring this to the attention of the minister because my own utilities commission likewise endorsed the resolution. I would like to read it into the record so that we could get a reply from the minister. By the way, to my understanding this was passed by the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association. The resolution reads as follows:

“Be it resolved that the Ontario government be asked to issue common voting stock certificates in the new Ontario Hydro Corp. to each participating municipal electrical public utility in proportion to the total equity which each such utility holds in Hydro; and that the board of directors of the Ontario Hydro Corp. be elected by the shareholders; and that, as an alternative to the issuance of common voting stock certificates in the Ontario Hydro Corp. the Ontario government be required to pay in cash to each municipal electrical public utility the recorded value of its equity in Ontario Hydro subject to interest at the prime interest rate until final payment has been made.”

The concern, I understand, Mr. Chairman, has been expressed by not only the utilities commission of Oakville where the resolution originated, but the commission of the city of Windsor and, I would assume, by many other commissions, including the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association. May we have a reply from the minister concerning the resolutions?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, yes, certainly. I dealt with the position of the government in two speeches -- at the OMEA annual meeting itself, and the other night at a speech to the AMEU in Oshawa. I won’t, therefore, deal with this at length.

I don’t know that the resolution originated in Oakville. As far as I know, the resolution originated at the OMEA annual meeting. But it doesn’t matter in any case. The OMEA, to my knowledge, has not formally sent that resolution forward -- whether it wants to consider it I can’t say; I honestly don’t know what its procedures are -- nor to my knowledge has it sent it to the Premier, but we have received it from -- I am guessing at this moment -- perhaps 10 utilities commissions in the province and we are answering them essentially in the same way.

Perhaps if I deal with the latter part of the subject first, the question of share certificates. Task Force Hydro said perhaps a piece of paper should be issued if that would make people happy; they didn’t say a share certificate, they said a piece of paper. That, as far as I know, is still before the Ontario Hydro board and if they choose to do so I suppose they will recommend it to the government. There is no intention of paying a dividend, though, regardless of the number of shares.

The underlying point in that resolution of course is the representation of the OMEA on the board of 13. We just don’t agree. As a government we don’t agree. As I recall, I think Task Force Hydro recommended two nominated by the OMEA out of 11, something like that. That is roughly what we followed. We feel, without being critical of Hydro in any way, Hydro has done a great job over the years. Under the commission structure -- and perhaps this is one of the reasons they have done such a good job -- they have stuck to the principle that power was to be provided at cost. That was their job and they got on with it.

Power cost implies a whole host of things. For example, in a narrow definition it implies that if you are going to build a transmission line from A to B the shortest distance is the lowest possible cost. Today I think most of us would concede -- certainly the government feels this way -- that that isn’t necessarily where the transmission line is going to be. It may have to detour to C to get from A to B, and that will not be power at the lowest possible cost as far as the power users are concerned. But there are other costs, environmental costs, social costs, agricultural costs, that must be taken into consideration which the power users may well pay and which may well jack up their costs of electrical energy.

Now, if that is to be the philosophy of the Hydro corporation, that there is more to life and to Ontario Hydro than simply power at cost, then the directors of the corporation must represent not just, if I can use the term, “the Hydro family”, and that, I think, is what the commission tended to represent over the years. And I am not being critical of any one person when I say this, the chairman and the vice-chairman of the old commission came from the government and the other commissioners came from the utilities and it was a nice happy Hydro family. I think in our view and in the view of Task Force Hydro, and the government accepted that, that something different was needed and that the directors should represent the broad aspirations of the people of the province. It certainly must be a competent board, but it has to be somewhat representative not just of the Hydro point of view but of a much wider point of view.

So on the Hydro board of 13 which has been completed now we have presently what I would call five in-house people: the vice-chairman -- who wouldn’t concede that he is in-house but he will be in-house very quickly. He will be swallowed up down there no matter how strong he is -- the former vice-chairman -- he isn’t swallowed up but he does represent a governmental point of view -- the two OMEA directors, who represent a utility point of view but an in-house point of view, and the president.

Mr. Sargent: Why can’t he speak to the House then?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That adds up to five in-house people. With that, we have --

Mr. Stokes: The only thing wrong with it is it is from a geographic point of view.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- a banker, we have an environmentalist, we have a very prominent person from the trade union movement, we have a woman who happens to be a business person, we have a radio and television owner, we have two people from northern Ontario, we have a person from eastern Ontario and people from southern Ontario --

Mr. Stokes: Who are the two people from northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Who are the two people? Mr. D. G. Hugill from Sault Ste. Marie and Mr. J. C. Lavigne from Timmins. Most of us would consider that Timmins and Sault Ste. Marie are in northern Ontario. I would concede that there presently is not representation from that great part of Ontario, northwestern Ontario. But there are two from the north. I have missed a couple, I think, in listing all who were on the board.

I appreciate the concern of the OMEA. They are a dedicated group. They are committed to a certain principle, but I think that if Hydro is to be responsive to the needs and the aspirations of the people of Ontario, that the board of directors must represent a much broader point of view than simply the narrow principle of power cost, period. And that’s what we have attempted to achieve. The appointment of the board, of course, is the appointment of the cabinet, not mine -- but I am very pleased with the composition of the board.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to ask the hon. minister if the composition of the board includes anyone from the environmental field, also, anyone from the consumer field.

An hon. member: They are all consumers.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, they are all consumers.

Mr. B. Newman: The minister knows what I refer to by consumer, though.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: From a consumer association?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it does not include anyone from a consumer association presently. Yes, to the member’s other question, from an environmental group per se. Yes, the chairman of the Sierra Club; I don’t know whether he is still the chairman, but he was.

Mr. Chairman: The former chairman. Is the member finished?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I am.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce, then.

Mr. Sargent: He is on this point, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to speak on this.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, all right.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): On a related point, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the utilities commission.

I know this is probably government policy coming from TEIGA, but could the minister inform the House when he is going to get the jurisdictional problems of the utilities straightened out as relating to regional government? It is creating a real hardship. People have been taken in to new municipalities and are still paying rural hydro rates. There is no problem as far as the municipalities are concerned. They are ready to take them. People would like to be switched over. They are still paying rural hydro rates because the regional government bill says that they have to get their hydro from the same authority they did before until the Treasurer (Mr. White) decrees a certain date.

Now we have gone on -- what? -- 15 months in Waterloo. We still haven’t got this problem straightened out. Surely the government is not going to try to fit every regional government into the same slot, and wait until it can find a slot that fits everybody. I think it should be dealt with on a regional basis, according to the wishes of the present utilities commissions and councils in those areas. How far are we away from a solution to that problem?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member is quite correct in what he has said. He knows the committee was formed to look at this problem generally. The Hogg committee was appointed last September, I think, and reported in January or February of this year. It consisted of two representatives from the OMEA and the AMEU, representatives from the provincial-municipal liaison committee, from Treasury, from Hydro -- I guess that was it -- and Mr. William Hogg of the Soo, a northerner, to chair the committee. He did a very excellent job, indeed.

Despite some very different points of view of the various groups mentioned, they came up with a unanimous report. That report has been released to everybody who wants it: The utilities, Hydro, government departments, the unions -- both the Hydro union and the local unions -- employee organizations.

We have asked for responses. I think we set a date of April 1 to begin with, which perhaps was a little short, but it didn’t matter. We have heard from the OMEA, from the AMEU, from a number of utilities; we heard from the Hydro union, I guess, today. I think really all we are missing are the views of the provincial-municipal liaison committee, and I meet with them a week from tomorrow.

Most of the briefs are generally supportive of the recommendations; there are some differences of opinion, obviously. I think I can say that I am generally in agreement with the report of the committee. There are a couple of things; one in particular, which isn’t that important. We think that it’s Hydro’s job to get on with this, rather than, as suggested in the report, that the Minister of Energy get on with it. I am not wedded to that position; we haven’t made up our minds yet.

But I would hope that after we have met with the provincial-municipal liaison committee -- Hydro board, by the way, have made their views known. I would hope probably in the next month we will be getting on with it. And then hopefully -- now, whether there will be a chance to legislate anything before the House rises for the summer, or whether we will be legislating in the fall, I suspect it will be in the fall.

Mr. Good: Is the major recommendation a one-tiered regional commission with councils and elected utility commissioners on it? Apart from councils?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. There are options, but their suggestion is that where a new area is formed that it not be a committee of council or the regional council -- that the first one be appointed by the regional council, perhaps by the Lieutenant Governor in council, I’ve just forgotten that. And then at the end of two years or whenever the end of the term, that the council then make the decision whether they want the hydro commission to be elected or appointed. What was followed in Thunder Bay, actually, which worked rather well.

Mr. Good: Who makes that decision?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The regional council --

Mr. Good: The regional council?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- makes the decision at that time, as they did at Thunder Bay. Well, it was the city council in Thunder Bay, and they chose to have an elected commission and that’s what happened.

Now, there is some disagreement that is coming in on that particular point, but that’s what Hogg recommended --

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- the Hogg committee, at the moment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions on the first two votes here. I understand you’re taking the first two votes together.

Mr. Minister, who are the three fellows in front of you there and what are their names and positions and the salaries they’re being paid?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Cunningham is -- I don’t know their titles -- is the administrative officer in the Ministry of Energy. I don’t know what he’s being paid.

Mr. Smith is the director of --

Mr. Sargent: Hold on. I’m asking a question and I want to know the answer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will get that information as I don’t know what they’re being paid.

Mr. Sargent: Okay.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. James Smith is the executive co-ordinator of policy in the Ministry of Energy; and Mr. William Morrison is the assistant director, generation projects, Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you. Can you tell me what they’re being paid?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Sargent: Will you ask them and tell me now, then?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. I will supply the information to the hon. member if he puts it on the order paper. I can’t with respect to Ontario Hydro, no. But with respect to the other two, yes.

Mr. Sargent: Well, everyone knows what I make in this place I’m holding down here, and I know of no reason why I can’t know what they’re making. This is public business and we should know.

Well, leaving that now, I want to ask you a few things. I have a letter here which you received, I think; a registered letter from a legal firm here in Toronto. And it goes on -- this is from a staunch Tory legal firm and they are fed up with the amount of money being paid Mr. Macaulay. They are fed up with the “public be damned” attitude of this minister and Hydro; that arrogance and greed are contrary to basic Christian tenets; that there should be sufficient legal talent in the civil service instead of handing out political plums. And our statistics show that the vast majority of practising lawyers disapprove of political patronage of this nature.

So, they have written to me, to the Law Society of Upper Canada, and to the minister. Although they are Conservative supporters in Ontario they do not preclude the concerned citizen from speaking up. Now they’re asking the Law Society to tax the account of Mr. Macaulay in this matter. They want to get across the fact that the vast majority of practising lawyers do not gouge the public, nor do they approve of political patronage. They say we are reminded in the canons of ethics that the practice of law is a branch of the administration of justice and not a mere money-making profession. You have a copy of this and I would ask you now to tell me, if you can, who made this deal for Mr. Macaulay? If it is true it’s $75 per hour. And who passes on his bills?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I just received that letter this morning, as a matter of fact, and I brought it with me to read, and I haven’t read it, I’ve just glanced at it. It’s dated April 29, but it didn’t arrive in the ministry until May 1 and I didn’t see it until today, so I haven’t considered it.

But I will say there is no question in my mind that Mr. Macaulay is worth every penny that he is being paid. If the member doesn’t agree, I happen to think that he is, and that is the opinion of a number of people. I made a speech about this over a week ago in Oshawa. I am very well satisfied with the performance and the service which Mr. Macaulay is rendering both to the Ontario Energy Board and to the Ministry of Energy. He is presently not doing anything for the Ministry of Energy, but I suspect he will in one of the hearings that will come up.

I should also say that Mr. Macaulay represented Ontario Hydro in certain constitutional litigation before the Alberta board last summer, and I think did an excellent job for the Province of Ontario and for the power-users of this province.

I don’t think, from my knowledge, that $75 an hour -- I have been told of a number of lawyers who charge more than $75 an hour. From my knowledge of what legal firms charge -- it isn’t just Mr. Macaulay, it is his firm -- I don’t think that is unreasonable. However, specifically, when it became apparent to me last spring that the then parliamentary assistant would need legal counsel, and when the Ontario Energy Board would need outside counsel from time to time, we went to the Attorney General (Mr. Bales) and asked for names. That was the name that was suggested and it was certainly agreeable to me. The fee of $75 an hour was settled between the Attorney General and the particular lawyer involved, as are the fees of all outside consultants or lawyers. We don’t get involved as a ministry, nor does the board, in determining whether the fee is too high or too low or anything else.

As far as paying the bill is concerned, we would certify it in our ministry as work which was done for the Ministry of Energy. The chairman of the board or his administrative officer would certify the bill that the work had been performed as far as the Ontario Energy Board is concerned.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t think anyone downgrades the ability of Mr. Macaulay; I have the greatest respect for his abilities as a lawyer. But, may I ask the minister -- you are the one who hired Macaulay, is that right?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Sargent: When you took over the portfolio, it was one of the first things you did, I understand.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I went to the Attorney General and asked for names. That was one of the names that was suggested to me as counsel which would be available, and that is how Mr. Macaulay came.

Mr. Sargent: So you think he is worth $1,000 a day?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: How much?

Mr. Sargent: One thousand dollars a day.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, his bill has run up to that, yes.

Mr. Sargent: It is $170,000 since Nov. 1.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, that also includes consultants which he has paid. I have indicated to the member, but he chooses to disregard it, that we do not pay this money to Mr. Macaulay; we pay it to Thomson Rogers. We have had Mr. Macaulay at times, we have had Mr. Rogers at times, we have had juniors at times. But in that Mr. Macaulay is paid at the rate of $75 an hour, and often, as I understand it, the bill comes to $1,000 for the day. In terms of what other lawyers charge, I would say that we are getting every penny of our money’s worth.

Mr. Sargent: In other words, if he wanted to read “Gone with the Wind” on the weekend, he could make himself $3,000 in 40 hours. As a third party, as a taxpayer, I have the power to go to the taxing master at Osgoode Hall and demand the taxing of this. But, before this happens, do you plan to review the bill or are you going to pay it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The bill is being paid, as it comes in, assuming that it is satisfactory to the official in the Energy Board who approves his bill, and assuming it is satisfactory to the person in our department, the bill is then passed through for payment.

Mr. Sargent: Do you know if he is in on consulting for the Pickering airport deal, too? Is he a consultant for them, too?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have no idea.

Mr. Sargent: Would you be surprised if he was? Could he do both jobs?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. He was also involved in --

Mr. Sargent: So he could have been making $2,000 a day?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He was also involved in litigation before the Ontario Municipal Board -- I remember reading this in the press -- for, I think, two or three weeks in Yarmouth township or St. Thomas. I don’t know who he was acting for. I assume he is carrying on other work in his legal practice from time to time. I doubt very much if during the time of the Hydro hearings he did anything else but work for Ontario Hydro, but he may well have made a phone call and charged somebody for that phone call. Certainly from my knowledge and from what the chairman of the board and Ontario Hydro tell me he was putting in 12 and 14-hour days during the time of the preparation for the phases 1 and 2 of the Hydro hearings. I imagine that with phase 3 of the Hydro hearings --

Mr. Sargent: He could be getting $20,000.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- beginning on June 16 -- or June 10 -- he will be devoting all or nearly all his time getting ready for those hearings.

Mr. Sargent: All I can say in this regard is I’d put in 20 hours a day if I was making that kind of money. You think that it is impudent to question his bill?

I’d like to ask you your policy on tendering. You stated the other night on television that Ontario Hydro is spending $200 million a year with -- is it Parsons? -- for generators for Hydro.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: For turbines?

Mr. Sargent: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: For turbines?

Mr. Sargent: Yes. Some $200 million a year for this one firm?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. I don’t think the total figure would be that high.

Mr. Sargent: That’s what you said on television. I have your transcript here.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think it would be that high. We would spend --

Mr. Sargent: You said something like $200 million a year.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I doubt if it would be that high and in any case it would depend on the year. It has been roughly split for the last four or five years -- it might not in any given year -- between Parsons and General Electric.

Mr. Sargent: I see. I was on the PUC in Owen Sound when Bob Saunders was the chairman and we had the conversion across Ontario. At that time, it worked out there had been price-fixing going on rampantly by GE and Westinghouse. If we ever boiled it down and analysed it, they owe the taxpayers of Ontario hundreds of millions of dollars. I am advised by people on the inside that your tendering policies on these multi-billion-dollar contracts for nuclear power leave a lot to be desired. How firm is your policy on tendering for these multi-million-dollar and billion-dollar deals? Are you on the same deal as you had with Moog for the building? Is it one of these same deals -- a no-tender deal? How are you doing it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The turbo generators, if that’s what you are talking about --

Mr. Sargent: I’m talking about your general policy on tendering for nuclear power.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If you are referring to turbo generators specifically, it is not the policy of Ontario Hydro to tender -- I would support this policy and have said so. They negotiate the prices of turbo generators and because they have done so with two Canadian-located firms, I think they have substantially built up a Canadian industry in Scarborough and Peterborough which is doing very well. It is competing in the world and is providing Canadians with jobs. There is no question in my mind that had it gone out to public tender those two facilities, or the facilities in Scarborough and in Peterborough, would not be here today. We would be buying generators from either Europe or the United States.

Mr. Sargent: We have the current situation with regard to policy here -- with regard to Imperial Oil in Canada and the alleged energy crisis here. In the United States the Federal Trade Commission has banned Mobil Oil from doing any television promotion based on the energy crisis. I think back a bit about the fact that I mentioned in the House that I had talked to the vice-president of Texaco, who told me there was no oil shortage. In your speech on television the other night you said, “The company charged what the market would bear for gasoline.” I am getting to the point that Imperial Oil tells us nightly in the televised hockey matches that it is spending $400 million on research, on finding out about the tar sands and all these things. When this is illegal on television in the United States, what is your policy as Minister of Energy? Are you going to allow them to flaunt an alleged energy crisis to sell their products when they are spending $400 million, not of their money, but tax depletion allowance money that belongs to the people, which they have given oil companies to use for exploration?

It is a compounded thing. They are using the money to flim-flam the public into believing there is an energy crisis. Are you going to allow them to flim-flam the people, regardless of the fact that we know there was no oil shortage? In your job as Minister of Energy are you going to do anything about fixing prices on the price of gasoline? Are you going to have a rollback in prices on this one commodity?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We discussed some of this the other day, Mr. Chairman, I think even during the time you were in the chair. But I have no authority obviously, nor does this government have any authority, over the advertising of oil companies in this country. I suppose if it is on television that the CRTC might exercise some controls, but with newspapers, I suppose that would be the newspapers themselves. I have not seen any advertising in Canadian publications that I would find offensive or particularly wrong. I think the supplements by Imperial Oil, who have four pages of colour supplements that appeared in Time magazine, Maclean’s and several other places, were very well done, I think that Imperial Oil has every right to put forward their side of the story, and that is what they are doing, and spending advertising dollars to do it. I have no authority to stop them in any case. I don’t know that anybody does. I have been reading those stories. I don’t particularly find anything that offends me.

Mr. Sargent: Then please answer my second question about the fixing of gasoline prices or a rollback on prices.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have no evidence that there has been any price fixing. If there were, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement), in particular, would certainly refer it to the combines investigation branch, but to my knowledge he has not done so nor do I see any evidence that price fixing is going on. As I explained the other day, we don’t have legislation similar to Nova Scotia in this province. It is an option which we are giving some thought to.

Mr. Sargent: If you think it is important enough to the Ontario people, and thought it was important enough about 68 years ago to set up a public utility called Ontario Hydro for this great source of energy and you note the talk by the federal government about a national oil policy, can you tell me why it wouldn’t be a good idea for Ontario to go into the oil business to protect the taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: To go into the oil business from start to finish? You are talking, basically, about billions of dollars. I am not sure that it would achieve the desired end.

The federal government apparently is going to bring in legislation for a national petroleum company. Nobody really seems to know what that legislation will contain or how far into the whole process they are going to go. We are talking about -- there has been some dispute about this -- we are talking about, in my view, a highly competitive industry, perhaps making too much money now, but a highly competitive industry. And if there is a sufficient degree of competition I’m not particularly interested in seeing the government get in as a competitor.

I think for Ontario to start an oil company it would take 10 or 15 years to build up any kind of expertise and, in the meantime I think we would have lost our shirt five or 10 times over. I don’t preclude it completely but it is not something we have under discussion at the moment.

Mr. Sargent: All right then, if you are afraid to get into that, how do you justify getting into the business of searching the world for buyers of uranium for the Candu system, to find a market for uranium? How many Candu systems have been sold to date?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Outside of the country they have been sold in Argentina, Korea; in Mexico I gather we are getting reasonably close. I think those are the firm sales. We are not searching the world, that is fundamentally the responsibility at this moment of AECL. But we’ve certainly been co-operating with them and I think this is one of the more exciting things that this country can do, quite frankly.

Mr. Sargent: Did you say you sold one in South America?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, in Argentina.

Mr. Sargent: You loaned them the money to buy it, did you?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The government of Canada did.

Mr. Sargent: How much, $800 million?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it wasn’t that much. As I recall it was $200 million. I’m not sure.

Mr. Sargent: It is a pretty tough deal when you say, “Here, buy our system, we’ll give you the money to buy it.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What we are doing is dealing with the Americans through the Export-Import Bank, and that’s the whole area of concessional financing. I don’t agree with it, but that’s the way these things are being sold.

Mr. Sargent: So you are talking about getting British partners to go into a third market together. Would you explain that please?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, the British have technology, we have technology, together the technology and the engineering capability I think would be greater. .And if we get away from concessional financing, particularly, London is still the money market of the world.

We have a very good capital market in this country, but the British one is better, there is no question about that, and if we get off this kick of concessional financing, which I would hope we would, then the British financial expertise, borrowing power, would be a very useful adjunct to the sale of Candu abroad.

Mr. Sargent: You say that the federal government is holding up two large sales of uranium with you, what is that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I didn’t say holding up, I said they haven’t approved as yet, to my knowledge.

Mr. Sargent: And you say further, let’s not just sell uranium, let’s get that enrichment plant going and sell enriched uranium.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right on.

Mr. Sargent: Yes. How much money are we talking about there?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: For a uranium enrichment plant? I think roughly, in round figures, $1 billion, probably more by now.

Mr. Sargent: What you are talking about makes economic sense.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It certainly does as far as I’m concerned. Rather than ship out of this country raw materials, uranium, if we are going to sell this uranium let’s sell it in an enriched form and provide jobs for Canadians and upgrade a Canadian resource.

Mr. Sargent: How many markets in the world do you have for uranium now?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: How many markets? Oh, the whole world.

Mr. Sargent: Who are you selling to?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Uranium, today? We are not selling it to anybody. It is being sold by the private sector, either from the stockpile owned by the federal government, Eldorado, or being sold by Denison or Rio Algom. But it has been sold, specifically in the last little while, to the United Kingdom and Japan by those two companies.

Mr. Sargent: You are asking the taxpayers to finance an enrichment plant?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are not asking the taxpayers to finance that $1 billion, no, not at all -- although it might make a great deal of sense for the taxpayers to finance that plan. I don’t preclude that possibility.

It may be that the government of Quebec will see fit to help finance that enrichment plant, but I say to you very frankly that this government, we on this side of the House, do not believe in exporting something from this country in the raw form when there’s a reasonable opportunity of upgrading it and putting a value-added on it. I think the value-added on enriched uranium is two or three times, something like that. It’s not likely to be something which will happen here in Ontario.

Mr. Sargent: The minister never ceases to amaze me. All of a sudden he is the world’s greatest authority on nuclear power and the answer to all the oil troubles of the world and he goes right down the pike when he gets alarmed and says, “Yes, we do have a great oil shortage.” He was speaking in Calgary and telling them they should get into the ball game and into the tar sands immediately. Syncrude in New York say it will cost close to $1 billion more and at least three years or more to start one single tar sands plant.

In all your speeches you keep on talking about that is the end, that’s for the next generation, that’s where the end is going to be and, until they come on, that is the answer for the oil problems. I would like to say that I think you are compounding the problems. You are in the ball game with the oil companies because it’s the biggest ball game in the world.

We have here the auto pact -- going back into the big ball game which we are faced with in energy in this country. It’s big business between the auto companies and the politicians and the oil companies. It says here:

“The auto pact [going back federally] is the most important insurance the Americans have to protect them from any attempt to disrupt their ownership of the Canadian petroleum industry or any move to prevent the development of Canadian oil and gas in line with continental demand.”

I am just so concerned that you are in bed with the big interests and the taxpayers are going to take a licking. You said the other night that -- I know your involvement, sir, with Union Gas in the Chatham area. I know your close affiliation with this industry.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Never fear when Darcy is here.

Mr. Sargent: You say that natural gas, now at 26 cents per 1,000 cu ft, will be going up to 60 cents per 1,000 cu ft or will cost the consumer in Ontario about $50 to $60 per year more. Tell me why, when we have given these people monopoly control of this energy form here, you can’t fix the prices and fix their profits for the people of Ontario? Will you tell me that, please?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Profits very definitely are fixed by the Ontario Energy Board; their rate of return is fixed and that’s what the rate hearings are all about. The member should know that Union Gas, Consumers’ Gas, Northern and Central Gas or Gaz Metropolitain have no control over the price of gas which is set in the Province of Alberta. It wasn’t set directly by the Province of Alberta but was certainly influenced by the Alberta legislation. The fact is the price of gas at the wellhead has gone up from 26 cents to 60 cents and I can’t conceive that any of the three Ontario utilities -- but this is something for the Ontario Energy Board to decide -- can absorb an increase like that in their prices, nor can TransCanada Pipe-Line.

Mr. Sargent: There is no way that you can prevent this from going up to 60 cents per 1,000 cu ft?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Sargent: That’s the wellhead price? That’s all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-Riverside. You are on vote 1801 and 1802?

Mr. Burr: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Burr: Is the ministry aware of a study entitled “An Assessment of Energy and Materials Utilization in the USA” which was made at the electronics research laboratory, College of Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, in September 1971? It was presented at a seminar on the ecology of power production.

I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because this paper argues that per capita energy consumption need not increase. In fact, it argues that it could be decreased 38 per cent by the year 2000 without reductions in the material goods and comforts to which the present day society has become accustomed.

This, I think, is contrary to projections made by many other sources. This study reaches its conclusion on the basis of savings. These would result from improved efficiency in many public services such as mass transportation, from the reuse and recycling of metals, from savings in industry and the increased use of solar energy as one of the factors contributing to the savings.

I feel this is an important study, because if it is valid, or even partially valid, a 38 per cent per capita reduction could be achieved. If it is applicable to Canada and Ontario, we should know about this now. Most projections for future energy demands show per capita increases, and seem to be put out by persons or organizations having a vested interest in meeting those so-called demands.

Let us consider the direct solar energy conversion, a system whereby the rays of the sun are collected and captured. This is an established technology, and I have here a photograph -- 60 years old -- of part of a solar energy power plant that existed in 1913 in Egypt. A 50 hp engine was successfully powered by solar steam along the banks of the Nile. Later, in California, solar water heaters were made and sold from the turn of the century, until about the mid-1930s when the competition from cheaper natural gas forced the company to stop production. Solar water heaters are common today in Israel, and they are standard equipment in many homes in northern Australia. Japan has more than a million of them in use.

In short, the basic technology is there. What is needed is a research and development effort to develop sophisticated and mass production processes that are competitive with current energy prices.

If either some or all of the various methods of harnessing solar energy were to become commercial in the next few years, not only would we need no more new nuclear plants, but it might even be that we could phase out our present ones to the salvation of many of the uranium miners.

What I am trying to tell the minister is this. The government of Ontario, in co-operation with other governments of this country, and the federal government, and even with the federal government of the US, should plan a substantial solar R and D programme. Why couldn’t Ontario take the initiative?

I think I have mentioned before that Nova Scotia could work on the ocean temperature difference phase; New Brunswick could work on tidal power; Quebec and Ontario on wind energy; southern Ontario on direct solar energy; and the federal government could come in wherever it was needed to take part most effectively.

If Ontario could develop some of the sophisticated technology first, then the province might well prosper and profit from subsequent exports of it, just as it is now trying to do with Candu. Perhaps the greatest blessing of solar energy in its various forms would be -- when used world-wide -- the obvious removal of conflict between nations, and this contribution to peace can’t come any too soon, as all members realize.

If the minister can play a part in this then more power to him. What I would like to know is whether the minister will get a copy of this particular study that I have mentioned and see whether Ontario could profit from some of the ideas presented in it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not familiar with that study, but I’ll be glad to have a look at it.

Mr. Burr: Yes, thank you. Can the minister tell me, how many of his advisers would he consider authorities or experts on any phase of solar energy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: None.

Mr. Burr: None. Is that the way it’s going to remain?

An hon. member: They are just not interested.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We went through this the other day. We just don’t think this is -- the member does, we don’t -- a place we are prepared to put our money into. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. Burr: Well, it’s a tragedy. Could the minister tell me, how long does heavy water last before it has to be renewed in a reactor? What is its life?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Forever, really, in theory. But in effect the loss is about one per cent. To date at Pickering it has been about one per cent, but in theory the heavy water lasts forever.

Mr. Burr: What is the cost per pound now?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know whether we still do or not -- we were buying from the pool, in effect. About $40, something like that.

Mr. Burr: About $40?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: About $40, yes. I think if memory serves me correctly, we are buying at about $40 because it’s coming out of the pool, but I think the cost of production is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $60 of $70. I think that’s the figure. We can get those figures for the hon. member.

Mr. Burr: In one of the publications put out it says that “manufactured by a complex process, heavy water costs between $18 and $20 a pound, but as the production increases the cost is expected to be reduced to about $16.” And you say it’s now up to $40?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is costing us much more than that. How old is that publication?

Mr. Burr: I got it at one of the libraries a couple of weeks ago -- it’s entitled “The Pickering generating Station.” You say it costs $70 and you sell it at $48, or --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I think that we are buying it at $40. This is sort of an involved procedure which will change since we now own the plants. In effect we have been buying out of the pool because it is cheaper.

The cost of production at Bruce, I think, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $67 a pound; we think it is. And the new plants’ output will be more than that. I don’t know where those figures come from, but they are low -- away low. They were the figures that were talked about a few years ago.

Mr. Burr: There is another matter that annoys me. It’s this publication which you can get at any library and at the Pickering plant, “Nuclear Power and Our Environment in Canada.” You open it up and the first sentence is, “Is nuclear power necessary?” The answer is, “In fact there is today no alternative if we are to conserve the world’s resources of fuel.”

Well, whether you want solar power or like solar energy you can’t deny that it is an alternative. Yet this says there is no alternative.

The next question is, “Is it safe?” The answer: “Nuclear power reactors have been in operation in the United States and Britain since the 1950s, and in Canada since 1962. There has not been one single fatal accident at any of them.” Now that is not true and I related several examples in one of my speeches. This is just not true: There have been fatal accidents. I am not going to repeat where they were unless you wish.

Next question: “Does nuclear power pollute?” It says: “Nuclear power plants do not discharge smoke, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen to the atmosphere and there are no unsightly piles of fuel and fuel handling equipment.”

Mr. Good: There certainly is sulphur dioxide coming out of Douglas Point.

Mr. Burr: At Douglas Point?

Mr. Good: Don’t tell me there is no sulphur dioxide coming out of Douglas Point. There sure is.

Mr. Riddell: It’s what you can’t see that contributes to the hazards of pollution.

Mr. Burr: At the uranium mines --

Mr. Good: That’s hydrogen sulphide, I mean.

Mr. Burr: Hydrogen sulphide? Yes. At the uranium mines, of course, there are these unsightly piles but they are not down here in Toronto or out at Pickering, that is true. But they do exist and, as you know, they are polluting the lakes. They certainly pollute the air up there. Here is a gem. “The plants require less space than a fossil plant.” Yet here is a headline, “No Buildings Allowed around Nuclear Plant.” There is a five-mile zone around the Bruce nuclear power plant in which no commercial buildings will be allowed. So it is not a very accurate statement either to say the plants require less space.

There are four statements which are not true. These are simply propaganda sheets. They are not scientific publications by any stretch of the imagination. They merely deceive the people who read them. I would appeal to the minister to get them taken off the shelves in our libraries and other places where they are given away to people with the intent to mislead them.

Could the minister tell me what these emergency cards are which have been issued around Inverhuron? How do they work?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They were simply in case there was an escape from the heavy water plant. They were simply handed out and they indicated what people should do, which is to move out of the area. I think they were a precaution developed by the safety committee.

Mr. Burr: Has the --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It relates to the production of heavy water rather than the nuclear plant.

Mr. Burr: This is the hydrogen sulphide?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Burr: Have the plans for the Pickering area been developed yet?

Hon. Mr. McKeough : The doubling at Pickering?

Mr. Burr: No, the emergency plans which have been under discussion or under preparation since January 1971, I believe it is.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Those plans are in operation so far as I know. There is one developed by Hydro; the Ministry of Health specifically has one. I think Emergency Measures is involved in some way or another. Basically it is the Ministry of Health, and Hydro itself. So far as I know they are operational; I think they are reviewed from time to time.

Mr. Burr: Well, last fall they were rejected because they were considered inadequate. The emergency measures branch had some hand in forming them and they were rejected last August, I believe, because they were inadequate for the situation, and they were going to be taken back and revised. Those are the ones I’m referring to. Have they been approved?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think, as I recall that story, that was the Ministry of Health. It wasn’t something that Hydro was directly involved in, as I recall, but I will have to get that information. I remember seeing that news story last fall some time, I guess.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make reference to some information that was released to the press today. Obviously the minister has got a copy, because he made reference to it a little earlier on. It dealt with the Hydro rate --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not uneasy about this, but that is a matter that has gone to the board. I think we might well deal with it under the third vote, but if you want to talk about it now, I am easy.

Mr. Riddell: Well, I was going to suggest other matters than what might pertain to the Energy Board but it doesn’t matter to me.

Mr. Chairman: The Energy Board comes under vote 1803.

Mr. Gaunt: Are we taking the first and second votes together?

Mr. Chairman: Yes. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My feelings about the whole question of uranium as a source of energy have been put forth pretty well, I think, by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) and the member for Sandwich-Riverside, who dealt with the subject extremely well on Friday, I thought. But I am thinking today in the aftermath of the walkout at Elliot Lake; and tempers have cooled somewhat; at least my temper had cooled until the Minister of Natural Resources made his statement today.

We get a little tired on this side when we talk about uranium as a source of energy, and we try to engage the Minister of Energy in a debate concerning the future of uranium as a source of energy fuel. On one hand he seems to take great prides in the accomplishments of Ontario Hydro, which I have always thought was the Conservatives’ one experiment with socialism, but he refuses to engage in any meaningful debate on the future of uranium in that sense.

I am wondering if he really is prepared to go ahead without reconsidering the use of uranium since the health of a great many miners’ lives could be at stake. It is possible, I believe, that uranium can be mined safely. But if it cannot be, then it should not be mined. If I could paraphrase my friend from Sandwich-Riverside, “I would rather light a candle, than heat my home at the expense of the health of the miners in our uranium mines.”

I believe that for a large number of reasons -- and I will enunciate some of them -- our uranium supplies should be brought under public ownership and operated through Crown corporations of the Province of Ontario. One of the reasons, of course, is the sensitivity of uranium --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to be provocative -- we did go through this at the last meeting, and I said nothing; it was a little bit more topical then than perhaps it is today -- but the question of safety as far as uranium is concerned clearly falls within the purview of the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources and not within these estimates. The member for Scarborough West was good enough to say that when he started out. He was speaking so beautifully, I think we let him go ahead. But, really, this is not in these estimates, I say with great respect -- particularly, as I understand it, since the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources will follow very quickly on these estimates.

Mr. Laughren: Just in response to that, I agree that the safety conditions in the mines are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources. No question about that. But we on this side of the House are concerned about the entire question of the Ministry of Energy hanging its hat on the supply of uranium without knowing whether or not the extraction of uranium can be done safely. Surely that comes within the purview of the Ministry of Energy. And for the moment I will refrain from talking about the conditions at Elliot Lake. I would be quite willing to discuss that subject in detail during the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

But, Mr. Chairman, if I could return to the question of whether or not our uranium supplies should be controlled in the way our electrical supplies are -- namely, through a Crown corporation -- I suspect that the minister would not disagree that that comes as part of the policy of the Ministry of Energy.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Don’t tell me the roof is burning again.

Mr. Laughren: If we consider the sensitivity of uranium as a potential military fuel, of course, that is one reason why it should be publicly controlled. There is the question of the supply of alternative sources of energy; namely, the non-renewable supply of our oil reserves in this country. There is the question of the working conditions in the uranium mines. There is the question of the past public investment in uranium supplies through the uranium companies in this province.

I think that the minister should refrain, through a great act of self-discipline, from responding to this kind of debate by stating rather blandly, “That is the difference between me and you socialists on that side.”

I think that hiding behind the labels of socialism or capitalism really does not constitute an intelligent response. It was not an adequate response when Ontario Hydro was made a public utility, and it is not an adequate response today when we are discussing the supply of energy in the province.

Of course, the minister has been known to dispense with our arguments on this side regarding public ownership by saying, “It’s too expensive. You fellows over there would bankrupt us.” That is, of course, simple nonsense. Before he makes that accusation, the minister should consider a couple of points.

First, just how much public money has been pumped into the uranium industry in the years gone by? Second, what does he anticipate the economic surplus will be generated for the uranium industry in the years ahead as the supply of uranium becomes ever more valuable?

It is not the cost of public ownership of our uranium supplies that is the obstacle, Mr. Chairman; it is the lack of a commitment on the part of this minister and the government he represents. It could be done with justice for all. It could be done, before the minister brings in the old chestnut, with ample protection to the widows and orphans who hold stock in uranium companies.

Besides the economic justification for it, there is a social justification too. That is the opportunity to establish a new benchmark in working conditions in our mines if the mines were under public ownership.

Let’s not overlook either the justification of giving working people the right to have a say in the conditions under which they work daily, and even in the way by which the ore is extracted from the ground.

As a matter of fact, if energy is the fuel of the future, there is every reason to put the people who extract that ore in a very special category and to give to them the right to work under conditions never before experienced in any mine.

For example, is it possible to extract ore in a uranium mine safely by having men work an eight-hour shift, or indeed by having them work a 40-hour week? I don’t know the answers to those questions.

I am not too sure just what has to be done to allow uranium to be extracted with no danger whatsoever to the miners. But I do know that if the Ministry of Energy is determined to hang its hat on uranium, it should have more of a concern or should be moving more aggressively in this field to ensure that the people who extract that ore receive the kind of protection they deserve.

We know that with the calibre of mining inspectors in the Province of Ontario -- I hasten to add that I never attack the civil service for the ills of the ministry, but in this case I must say that we do not have faith in the mining inspectors in this province because they do not take the initiative in determining or improving the working conditions. It would appear that their first allegiance is to their former employers and in almost every case that is the mining companies.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Perhaps the member has made his point even if it is in the wrong ministry.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, surely --

Mr. Chairman: No, I have been listening very carefully and the last few moments have been out of the discussion. I will let the member go on if he can go on to some other point in connection with 1801-2. He may continue.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely cannot think of any better reasons for having our energy reserves controlled by a Crown corporation than the health and the protection of the people who work in those mines. The people who are involved in the extraction of ore never have exaggerated the working conditions. Surely that should be one of the major concerns of the Minister of Energy -- to make sure that he does not rely on a fuel in the future that is extracted at the expense of people’s health. I really do wish that this minister would take it upon himself to regard the working conditions in the area of uranium mines as at last partly his responsibility.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The member is repeating himself now three or four times and all out of order. I advise him not to continue.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I will submit to your ruling: I would only say in conclusion, if I might, I do not believe that we will ever see the right kind of working conditions in the uranium mines as long as they are controlled by the private sector and particularly those corporations that are active in the uranium mines.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Just a few short comments, Mr. Chairman. Is it the Lennox plant that is going to be oil fired?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Good: Could the minister tell me how the supply of oil will be kept constant summer and winter? I understand that during the summer it will be brought in by lake tanker, and someone has suggested to me that it is going to take acres and acres of storage tanks to supply this thing during the winter. What is the technology on this?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are some stories that it is going to come by rail from Montreal essentially. With this qualification, some time we hope Wesleyville will also be oil. This is not a pipe dream -- at some point or another one would hope that there might be a refinery in eastern Ontario which would change that picture. One of the reasons for strengthening the pipeline, or at least building the pipeline to Montreal, is that it would be right on the pipeline. But the answer to your question is that it will come by rail from Montreal.

Mr. Good: Is it feasible to have sufficient oil delivered by rail to fire this plant without using storage?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Unit trains.

Mr. Good: Okay. Along the same lines -- and this has to do with the use of coal in the generation of electricity -- a couple of years ago I wrote the CN and CP regarding the technology they have developed in rail haul of coal from Alberta to the west coast for transshipment to Japan. Evidently it is now quite a satisfactory method of moving coal with the types of cars they have developed and it is fairly economical. I asked them at that time about the use of Alberta coal in Ontario by Ontario Hydro -- whether this would be feasible. The discussion that went on was that with a proper transfer point at the Lakehead and the transshipment by boat to generating stations, it could be developed. But they were waiting for Ontario Hydro even to talk about it or speed up discussion on it to see if it couldn’t be feasible.

What I have ascertained by looking into this whole situation is that Ontario Hydro seems to think of coal as the last resort as far as generating electricity. Others have the opinion that if there is better technology developed or even existing technology used to a better degree by Ontario Hydro, coal may ultimately be the final source of energy that will have to be used to generate electricity. Supplies of gas and oil, of course, are quite limited and they are a resource which is not in as abundant supply as is coal.

I am wondering if the minister could tell us how important the future use of coal is in the plans for Ontario Hydro, whether there is any concentrated effort being made to develop means of burning low-sulphur and the regular type of coal to prevent pollution, which is the basic problem with it, and whether there is advantage in using Canadian coal. When we look at the cost of export dollars, on balance of payments -- again this year there was another borrowing by Ontario Hydro down in New York -- I think $125 million or $100 million is going to be spent exclusively in the United States for payment of coal. What about coal in the future plans of Hydro?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Very big. Let me just touch on a point that you raised at the end. In terms of balance of payments there are many right now who hope that Hydro goes on buying coal in the States because of the position of our dollar. I don’t think, in the long run, that makes sense. It isn’t a valid argument. It probably is at the moment.

No, Hydro is very big on coal -- roughly 35 per cent of the present generation is coal. There is no oil at the moment. Lennox is to be the first oil-fired station other than a little bit at Douglas Point. When Lennox was planned it looked like oil made sense. It is cleaner or can be cleaner than coal, and that picture has changed in the last couple of years. Wesleyville was reviewed and it still made sense to use oil.

My guess is that future Hydro plants which are non-nuclear for some time to come will be using coal. The projected use of coal to the year 1980 is something like 19 million tons a year.

There are problems with western coal. It is low sulphur but the problem is the Btu content. The American coal has a Btu content of about 12,000 and western coal is about 6,000 to 7,000. This means you are shipping nearly twice as much coal to get the same amount of heat. Railways always sort of forget that point -- well, not really.

The last figures we saw indicated that coal from western Canada would be about 50 per cent higher than coal from, for example, the United States Steel purchase. It’s a lot longer haul. In fairness, the mines in the States are pretty efficient but -- as I indicated earlier when we were talking about coal, I guess with the member for York South -- they are not as efficient in western Canada as they can be. I’ll put it that way. They are relatively small. They are not the big operations.

There is the problem with Btu content. There is the problem with transportation. There is the higher cost. I think all these things can be overcome and will be overcome in time -- perhaps by pipeline, perhaps by unit trains. We see a big future for coal and a big future particularly for western Canadian coal because it’s good for western Canada and therefore good for us.

Mr. Good: So there is no minimum plan of development as far as the train and the transfer stations at the Lakehead, as far as Ontario Hydro --. Are there any talks going on between Ontario Hydro and CP or CN as far as that goes?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, and between the CTC and between the government of Alberta. Yes, very much so -- and between MTC. Yes.

Mr. Good: One other question -- the Onakawna lignite deposit -- this will never really develop into an important factor as far as generating electricity in Ontario, will it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It doesn’t mean to say it shouldn’t be done but it’s 1,000 megawatts for 30 years and from what we know now that has gone. Nanticoke will be 4,000 megawatts -- to put it in perspective.

Mr. Good: That is coal.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s coal. But so far as we know at this moment, there isn’t that much lignite. The member for York South -- again we talked about this a little earlier when we were talking about possible gasification -- that made a lot of sense. There simply isn’t enough lignite there, as far as we know, to do anything on that scale with it.

It doesn’t mean to say, though, that it shouldn’t be developed for power for that 1,000 megawatts or 900, whatever it is, for the 30-year period. That may make sense.

Mr. Good: What would happen then if you built up a use for it there, an industry or something? I understand the local economy is really one of the main purposes for developing it. What happens at the end of 30 years when there is no more lignite? Are we going to have another ghost town?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know. You take that into account as to whether you should bring in -- you might well bring in lignite that is around Saskatchewan, which is a lot closer and in 30 years’ time, if there was still an economic life left in the plant and I am sure there would -- the plant would be amortized over a 30-year period, I guess -- but there would probably be life left in it. It might well make sense by then. That’s a long way in the future, to be bringing lignite from Saskatchewan, or we might find more in northern Ontario at some point.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister has had any communication from his federal counterpart, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning a possible delay in the construction of the pipeline. I ask that because when the federal minister was in Sudbury last weekend, he made a statement there was a possibility of a delay in construction because of the possibility of offshore deposits on the east coast of Canada. I wonder if he has communicated that to this minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. As far as we know the hearing is still going ahead in June or May. In the next 10 days or so the interprovincial hearing goes ahead.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to speak briefly about the amounts of money that the Energy minister is putting into research on energy and energy fuels. In the Province of Alberta through the Alberta Research Foundation, a tremendous amount of government support over the years in both geological and petroleum research, the original research plus applied research has been done. We have not really put much money into the Ontario Research Foundation and for quite some years there has been an attitude of not spending funds on original research. We have given some grants through the Ontario Research Foundation to various universities but here again they have been slight and have been decreasing on the whole rather than increasing. In fact, through the Research Foundation, we spend about a factor of 10 per capita less on Ontario Research Foundation than does Alberta. I bring this up specifically as it relates to hydrogen as a prospective source of fuel in the future. As you know, we are about 15 years away from it being technically and economically feasible to produce hydrogen in large quantities by electrolysis.

Hydrogen, of course, when it is burned produces only water as the product of combustion. So it is a very clean fuel and it seems to me that if through the Ontario Research Foundation original research -- which in this case has a very applied aspect to it -- was funded by the Ontario government we could materially advance the date at which hydrogen fuel would become available as an alternate source of fuel in this province, both as a means of replacing natural gas as the major heat source in the province and as the means by 1990 and thereafter of producing electrical power.

It strikes me that this ministry really should be taking a great interest in this type of fuel as the future fuel. If one put research funds into this at the moment, we could advance that date from 15 years to something like eight or 10, where this would be economically feasible as a fuel. There are also reports from various bodies looking at hydrogen as an energy source, where it can be used in fact as a replacement for gasoline in car vehicles. A Dr. G. A. Karim, professor of chemical engineering in Calgary, has developed a model of a hydrogen-oxygen engine which also recycles the waste hydrogen in its exhaust; the whole engine uses hydrogen and is used as a replacement for the conventional gasoline engines for powering our cars. The two winning entries in last year’s national urban vehicle design competition in Detroit were vehicles which ran on hydrogen.

We have the technology -- it’s a pretty advanced technology -- of the use of hydrogen engines as replacements for the engines of our cars and trucks in the future. Hydrogen is very easily converted and is very easily used as a source of fuel with very slight conversions required, in our natural gas furnaces. Certainly, rather than going back to the rather dirty coal or even oil as a means of firing our Hydro stations in the future, hydrogen has its application there.

The question to this minister is what are you doing in the way of energy research and will you consider -- and I urge you very strongly to do so -- putting some research funds into making hydrogen economically and technically feasible as a means of all kinds of fuel replacements? What is being done in this area of research through the Ontario Research Foundation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nothing through the Research Foundation. We have discussed this earlier; this ministry doesn’t have an amount in here for research. It will be some years before we are competent to direct or to initiate research. It is not a high priority at this moment. Hydro, of course, has a large research budget, particularly through AECL. AECL, in particular response to your question, has been doing some work on hydrogen and in our payments to AECL we support that.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on votes 1801 and 1802?

Mr. Burr: Yes. How many members on the minister’s staff are of a technical nature, not clerical?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Roughly 20.

Mr. Burr: I’m sorry?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Roughly 20.

Mr. Chairman: On votes 1801 and 1802? The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I discussed with the minister, when the bill was introduced to create the ministry, the matter of heating oil prices across the province. We talked at that time about the fact that the various oil companies set up pricing areas which are really artificial devices for increasing their profits. The oil companies will tell you that these areas are set up on the basis of reflecting transportation costs. My experience has been, comparing some of the prices, they really don’t bear any relation at all to the transportation costs.

I am wondering if the minister has ever thought any more about the matter of having a uniform price for heating oil right across the province? We discussed it very briefly at that time and I think, as far as the minister was concerned at that point in time, he wasn’t really prepared to give the matter any serious thought, which is understandable. In view of what has happened in the intervening period and in view of the whole energy crisis, so to speak, I am wondering if the minister has thought about this any further and if, in fact, in his view it would be a practical solution?

I have to point out that the areas of the northern part of western Ontario and northern Ontario itself pay the highest heating oil prices in the province. They not only have to pay the highest prices they suffer the most severe winter weather conditions as well, so they have two additional factors against them in terms of the pricing policies on heating oil. I am wondering if the minister would make some comment and if, in fact, he could apply this principle to heating oil. It has been applied by Hydro. I realize Hydro is a government emanation but the fact of the matter is that beer prices across the province are equalized. They are set --

Mr. Stokes: OHIP premiums.

Mr. Gaunt: OHIP premiums, yes -- but beer prices are equalized across the province and the Brewers’ Retail Ltd. is a private concern which sets the beer prices and is able to make the accommodation in regard to beer prices. And I am thinking that home heating oil is certainly a much more vital ingredient, as far as people’s shelter costs are concerned, than beer prices are. Heating oil is an important shelter cost for many people across the province, and I would suggest that this is a matter which should be pursued with the oil companies.

Do I get any response?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, we discussed this before. Beer, as we know, is sold through one source, the Brewers’ Warehousing Co. The price is set by the government. This is not true of heating oil. If the member is asking if the government has any intention at this moment -- presumably through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and not through my ministry -- to move in and set prices in the oil industry, I would have to say the answer at the moment is no. We can’t move in and say we are going to have one price throughout Ontario without in fact controlling price, and that is not our intention.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think it is quite that way, with respect. What I am after is to find out if the Ministry of Energy is prepared to negotiate with the oil companies and put the suggestion forward to them. Perhaps that is all that is needed. Perhaps they would be inclined toward the idea. And perhaps they would pick it up immediately and try to institute some system whereby this could be achieved. On the other hand, they may not, they may resist. But I am just wondering if the minister is of a mind to pursue the matter with the oil companies and put forward the suggestion. I think, at this juncture, it would at least initiate the idea with the oil companies.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the suggestion has been made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement).

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on 1801 and 1802?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Mr. Gaunt: I am wondering if there was any particular response --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Unfavourable.

Mr. Gaunt: Unfavourable. I think that it is just --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As I understand it, I don’t think it was --

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps before we continue the discussion the hon. House leader might be allowed a moment.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, before the House rises I would like to take a moment to place on the record of the Legislature the fact that yesterday George Henry Doucett passed away.

I would like to record that he began his political career in 1922 in the township of Ramsey, and later in a higher elected office in that same township. He was a member of the Ontario Legislature from 1937 to 1957. He served under Premiers Drew, Kennedy and Frost as Minister of Highways and also Minister of Public Works.

In 1957 Mr. Doucett was elected to the House of Commons by acclamation as the member for Lanark and remained in the House until 1965. He did not contest that election.

He leaves behind his wife, the former Mona Dickinson, and I am sure that all of us join in extending our sympathy to her. I would say that because he was a personal friend of mine, Ontario has lost a great Canadian.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to the House leader’s remarks. I had the pleasure of sitting here with Mr. Doucett for two years, and he served this province with distinction. I am sure that on this side of the House we regret his passing very much.

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