Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Mr. Chairman: On vote 1702, item 4, the hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

On vote 1702:

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I just want to pose a question to the minister with respect to the farm tax reduction programme, which is a year-by-year programme. I am wondering if the minister has any views with respect to formalizing this particular programme so we will know that it will be operating for a certain period of time or if there are any plans afoot to change the programme in any way.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): No, not really, Mr. Chairman. There are no plans to change it specifically. It will continue, and there is no thought at all of cancelling. This sum simply is to take care of late applications that come in and some that were under appeal and couldn’t be paid until the assessment or review court had dealt with them.

I would say that about the only change in the programme is that forest lands will be taken care of through another type of programme, which will be just about the same as this one, only I think it will reflect tree farming to a greater degree than livestock or grain farming, or something like that.

Mr. Gaunt: At that rate, Mr. Chairman, there must have been quite a number of appeals. What was the basis of most of the appeals? Does the minister have that information?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Certainly not all of these late applications were based on appeals, but some of them were based on appeals concerning tree farming and whether or not there was sufficient income from the farm. Some of them didn’t know whether they should apply or not, and then filed late. I think we have paid out about $28.5 million already, and this is to finalize the payments of late applications that have come in.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the minister about two specific points, and one of them has to do with tree farming.

Is the minister aware of a submission that was made to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) by the Ontario Professional Foresters Association, who were taking up the cudgel for those people who had productive lands for purposes of forestry and who felt that the tax structure was taking undue advantage of those who were genuinely interested and concerned about growing trees, perhaps not as an agricultural crop, but as a crop?

They felt that the grants for farming in general didn’t give appropriate attention and relief to those who were genuinely interested in growing trees as a crop, particularly in southern Ontario, where there was land that wasn’t considered class 1 and class 2 but shouldn’t be allowed to go waste. They felt that under the Woodlands Improvement Act, sponsored by your colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), this was a legitimate undertaking to foster the growth of trees, particularly, I suppose, in the white pine species, and to foster more rapid growth in the hardwood species, which are so necessary to the veneer plants and to the furniture industry in southern Ontario. I am wondering if you have given any consideration to that.

The second point I want to raise relates to the $6 million in grants for capital purposes in farm development. I have very few farmers in my riding, but I did get a letter within the last few days and I passed it along to the minister for his consideration. There was one chap who was in the beef-raising industry, and he had committed himself to the borrowing of several thousands of dollars -- I think it was up to $50,000 from conventional lending institutions. Because of problems with the raising of young beef, he said that the $75 per head was of very little assistance to him.

I am wondering if there is anything in this vote of $6 million that would assist those in the beef industry over this particularly hard time that they are having because of, I suppose, a glut on the market at the present time and the depressed prices of young beef. Is there anything in that or anything that you see that might assist those over this particularly hard time?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, first of all, to answer the first part of the question, yes, we have the professional foresters’ brief. It contained a lot of very valuable material as the hon. member has suggested. My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources and the entire resource policy field have given it a great deal of consideration. I hope we will be able to expand on programmes already in existence and develop what I think are absolutely essential programmes for the future of the Province of Ontario.

To my way of thinking, there are many farms in Ontario in the developed part of the Province of Ontario, land owned in fee simple by people who may not find themselves in the position to farm it because the class of the soil doesn’t lend itself to crop production, but it does lend itself to tree production. In my opinion, those kinds of people should be given very serious and sincere consideration insofar as farm tax rebate is concerned in tree farming because, to me, they are going to make a very great contribution to the future of Ontario’s industry and the quality of life we enjoy in this province by planting those farms into trees, provided they are properly managed, provided the right trees are planted and provided that the scrub trees are removed and that they really tree farm.

I am sure that the Minister of Natural Resources has an excellent programme under way in this regard and that he will be having a lot more to say about it, but I can assure my friend that we are very conscious of the problem. We want to see it developed. We want to see a very real contribution made to the future. I have often said that the programme of private forest lands that was introduced by the late Kelso Roberts when he was Minister of Lands and Forests was, in my opinion, one of the greatest steps forward that I have ever seen happen in the Ontario Legislature. I am extremely biased in these remarks and in these comments.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That is the woodlot management.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Woodlot management to my way of thinking was one of the greatest things that ever happened.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The greatest thing.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It was one of the greatest things that ever happened.

Mr. Stokes: It wasn’t promoted properly, though.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Perhaps, but there are a vast number of people involved in it. To my way of thinking, it is going to make a very great contribution because there are areas of this province that do not lend themselves to crop production but do lend themselves to tree production. We should be doing more of it. I think that the programmes that are under way will reflect themselves in this regard.

With regard to the second question, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Thunder Bay asked, which was the matter of the $6 million capital grants, this particular programme does not apply to the assistance to the sale of beef calves or beef feeder cattle. This is purely capital. It does apply to those people who have applied for the --

Mr. Stokes: The building of a barn.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- building of a barn, the building of pit silos, outbuildings, fencing, wells, water supply and this kind of thing. Last year we budgeted for $10 million. We have about $6 million worth of applications on hand now that we project will be required or that will come in and that will require an additional $6 million to the end of the present fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): I have just a few points, Mr. Chairman. Whenever I see government expenditures for the benefit of farmers, I hate to say anything derogatory about the minister’s programmes. I just hope that some of the moneys appropriated are for the benefits of chicken warmongers as well.

When this farm tax reduction programme first came into effect there were rebate cheques being sent to persons who were not bona fide farmers. Now that application has to be made for this tax reduction programme, I’m wondering if those non-producing rural people have been weeded out. In other words, have we pretty well eliminated the abuses with the present programme?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would say that there’s been a marked improvement in that regard.

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

Mr. Gaunt: There are just two points I want to raise. One is with respect to capital grants --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): They will take an hour each.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Any conflict of interest?

Mr. Gaunt: No, there’s no conflict of interest. As I understood it, a limit was placed on the amount of capital grant money going out in each fiscal year. As I recall it, during the estimates for this current fiscal year, we voted that limit. So I can’t understand the additional $6 million. Could the minister explain that to me? And while I’m on my feet, I might as well raise the other point, on the Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan. Corp. deficit, $1.5 million. Just how is that made up? Could the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. First of all, on the capital grant, the hon. member is quite right, Mr. Chairman, we did, budget for $10 million However, the capital grant programme continued on, and it amazes me that the number of farmers that have used the programme and yet there are more coming along all the time using the programme. The $10 million has already been expended. As a matter of fact, I think they used the last of it up about last week. The applications that are on hand and which are in the process of being looked at will require, between now and the end of the fiscal year, according to our calculations, about $6 million. We’ve added this in, because farmers have gone ahead, not knowing that they wouldn’t qualify. They had no way of knowing that the $10 million which was announced and which was budgeted last spring -- we debated this and it was approved -- would be all used up. They really didn’t know and they committed themselves to those expenditures. We think that where they have made application having gone ahead in good faith to spend this money to make improvements on their own farms, we should make an honest effort to try to meet our obligations in paying the grant. That’s why the $6 million is requested.

With regard to the $1.5 million, as an assist to the junior farmer loan programme, this is the difference between what we budgeted last spring -- and if memory serves me right, it was about $2.9 million -- to pay the difference between the interest charges to the Province of Ontario and what the junior farmers pay on their loans. With the increase in interest rates that has happened in this fiscal year, to date even -- from, what? nine per cent to about 11 point something or other -- we estimate that we will require another $1.5 million to make up that difference. That’s the subsidy of junior farmer loans in this province.

Mr. Gaunt: Could, the minister tell me what is planned for the next fiscal year? Are you going to set a limit on the capital grant expenditure again? If you are, are we going to be faced with the same kind of thing come next year?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, that is difficult. I would assure my friend that we would have to provide at least $10 million. No one can tell. For instance, last year we put out about $18.1 million, the year before that it was something like $26.5 million, the year before that it was $24 million-odd, and the year before that it was around $18 million or $19 million. So you just don’t know.

One would think that most of the farmers in Ontario had already made use of the capital grants, and so we thought that the $10 million figure was a reasonable figure, but we find that it just wasn’t enough. So I can’t honestly give you an answer as to whether it will be enough, but there will be that amount of money in the budget for next year.

Mr. Gaunt: One final question, Mr. Chairman: How many junior farmer loans are still outstanding?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think there are 4,800, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, have there been any foreclosures in the last year in connection with the farms that have the junior farmer loans? Is it still government policy to permit the transfer of a junior farmer loan if the farm is sold because of foreclosure or for some other reason?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I wouldn’t say there have been any increases in the number of foreclosures, Mr. Chairman. There is always the odd one that could crop up, but there have been very, very few. The record of repayment and maintenance of payments on time is exceptionally good.

With regard to the transfer of farms on which there is a junior farmer loan to some other farmer, yes, that programme is still in effect, providing he meets the appropriate criterion of being someone who knows what he is doing in farming and who has some experience. Sometimes the interest rate is increased beyond the five per cent but that method of transfer is still there. We think it is better for a farmer, who for a variety of reasons -- ill health, or any number of things -- finds himself unable to carry on, to find someone to whom he can sell, and we just simply transfer the mortgage and he carries on. It works out to everybody’s mutual advantage, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 1702 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

On vote 1903:

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1903, the environmental control programme. The minister has a statement.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): I don’t really have a statement, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to point out that vote 1903(3) is basically for water and sewage programmes in the Province of Ontario -- money we have spent and will be spending before the end of the fiscal year.

“Utility: plant operations,” the second part of the vote, is for plant operators in the plants who have come on stream since the April 1, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments on item 3?

The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note here that the increase to $130 million is not quite 10 per cent over what had been allocated. I presume this represents the provincial portion of the grants for new works that come in this year.

Could the minister tell me how many applications there are before the ministry at the present time? Were there more applications that reflected this increase, or is this reflected by increased costs of providing the services in keeping with your policy of not charging more than $240 per year per household? Is this because of increased costs, or are more plants being constructed?

Hon. W. Newman: It is because of increased costs, of course, because the estimates coming in when we go out to tender are much higher.

Another one is the fact that we have had a lot more requests for more expansion of our programmes. We have asked for, in the design stage or in the construction stage or there will be coming on stream shortly at this point in time about 387 projects in the province.

Mr. Good: One other question: Does it still take three, four or five years to get a plant through to the completion stage from the time the municipality decides on a project until you get the thing in operation? This has always seemed to me to be an unreasonably long time.

I could state one instance after another where municipalities have just been frustrated by the slowness in getting these sewage plants into service. It not only holds down production in established municipalities, but it disrupts all the municipalities that think the plants are coming within a year or two. By the time the plants are completed, people have changed their plan of living, they sell their homes or they think they’re going to build senior citizens’ homes in municipalities as soon as the sewer and water works get in. The time seems to be unreasonably long in getting these things into production.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Just show a little speed, like the Moog and Davis building, south of this building.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with the member opposite, who says it takes a lot of time, but there are many stages we must go through.

I can start out by saying that when a municipality decides it wants to build a sewage work, an application is made to the ministry and we check it out to see if it is really needed and so forth. Then consulting engineers are appointed to do a study, which takes up to six months. They report back to the ministry; then our people -- we don’t have the engineering staff that we need -- take considerable time to go over those plans to see if they are all right. Then we project a proposed water rate, go back to the municipality and discuss it. From that point, of course, it has to go to the Ontario Municipal Board, which does take considerable time.

Mr. Haggerty: Too much time.

Hon. W. Newman: I agree, but these are the processes that have to be gone through. To give you an example, a design came in the other day for a particular project; and meaning no disrespect to the firm that did it, the sewer line was designed to go 3 ft. deeper than it should have been, which meant a saving of $200,000 to the municipality involved. That is what takes our staff’s time -- checking to make sure that we are protecting the municipality.

Of course, we say 130 and 110. As you know, many bids are coming in well over that, even with the provincial subsidy of 75 per cent. We’re looking at that whole matter now.

As far as the time frame is concerned, it’s not always our fault. The municipality may decide, when they want to put in sewers, that they want to extend them further, which means further discussion and more engineering. But it does take time; I don’t deny it takes time.

Mr. Good: One further question. I don’t know if the minister can answer it or whether I will have to go to another ministry.

What happens when an agreement is reached between a municipality and your ministry about providing services, and the rate structure has been approved and set out, both as to usage charge, frontage charge, connection charge and so on, and then a region is formed? If the regional municipality suddenly decides that water procuring and distribution is on a regional basis, does the region have the power to establish a rationalized rate for the whole region and throw out those agreements?

Hon. W. Newman: As a rule, on most projects -- most, but not all -- that we started, prior to the formation of regional governments, we were allowed to carry on. In some cases the regions have said: “Okay, it’s our responsibility. We’re going to take over and we’re going to do it.” They do that under the authority of the legislation passed by the provincial Treasurer (Mr. White) as far as regional governments are concerned. They do have the authority to deal with those matters.

Some regions have the total authority, not only for the major trunks for both water and sewer but also for the connections. Other regions only have the major trunks and water to deal with, while the local municipality has a great deal to do with the actual connections or the growth patterns in that municipality. They are different arrangements for different regions in the province.

Mr. Good: If the ministry owned the installation and the region took it over, they could keep up your agreement and pay you at that rate, and they can then sell their water at any price they want to the municipalities within the region. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, if we do the project, we charge so much for 1,000 gallons of sewage or water, whatever the case may be. How they levy and raise that money is really their responsibility. If they want a foot frontage or mill rate levy or some other way, that’s up to them. Just as long as we come to agreement on the actual payments for the amount of money involved.

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

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a few questions of the minister on plant development and construction. Does this include anything of the planning for the asbestos plant in Sarnia, or any projected ones over the next year? That’s the first question.

On the second question, I noticed on television over the supper hour $11 million has been put into testing and equipment to examine the water in several localities throughout the province in terms of additives -- asbestos and mercury, and a whole number of chemical and other substances.

I wanted to know, for purely parochial reasons, if it is planned that such testing will take place in Thunder Bay harbour.

This is not so much concern about the present levels, but the constant danger due to the continued dumping of taconite tailings by Reserve Mining Co. south of Thunder Bay, as the report pointed out quite clearly.

A number of people I’ve talked to have expressed concern -- including the Minnesota pollution control agency -- that currents sweeping around the west shore of Lake Superior can funnel up from Duluth, through the nose of the lake so to speak, and then swirl back into Black Bay and Thunder Bay.

I was just wondering if the ministry was considering establishing an ongoing testing programme, such as the one that was mentioned over the supper hour as taking place in Niagara-on-the-Lake and Toronto and the lakes down here?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t see the programme over the dinner hour, but I did hear about it. I can’t really comment. I know we have a lot of equipment down at the lab. We are always getting some new equipment in for testing. Some of it is in service now, in fact most of it is.

I gather from the programme, which I didn’t see, that there was some doubt about just how much of the equipment was actually in place. I gather that most of it is in place.

You were talking about Thunder Bay. You are concerned about some of the comments in the last few days, both in the House and by the news media. I can assure you that we are constantly doing lab testing on the asbestos count in all the water systems across the province.

As a matter of fact, just today I received from England a report on extensive tests done in three different labs regarding the ingestion of asbestos fibre in water. It indicates there is no carcinogenic effects by ingesting asbestos when drinking water. This is a report that came out about two days ago. There has been intensive testing in Britain on asbestos fibre and other materials too.

Mr. Foulds: I find that difficult to accept.

Hon. W. Newman: Come over and see the report.

Mr. Foulds: For one thing, it is only a clipping you are referring to there, as I view it across the way. But let’s not get into an argument about that, we can do that at some future time.

If you are installing a filtration process in Sarnia, surely you view it as being a significant and worthwhile expense, and no one is quarrelling about that. If it is significant in Sarnia, surely it is at least as important in places like Thunder Bay, where the possibility of a problem also exists.

The on-going type of testing programme talked about on the television programme on CBC over the supper hour that is being carried out in southern Ontario, should also take place in Thunder Bay.

In terms of this vote it should be made apparent to the municipal authorities in Thunder Bay that it might be a very good idea, and your ministry would be willing to assist them financially, to build a filtration plant into their water intake systems.

You understand that Thunder Bay has two different sources of water. One comes from Lake Superior directly and services half the city. That’s not all that far -- I think it’s something like less than a mile; as it may be about 800 yards or so -- from the outflow of raw sewage from a section of the city. Because of that, that plant and that water intake plant should be constantly monitored, and not merely for asbestos. My concern wasn’t merely on asbestos, it was on the whole range of items that your ministry is testing. What I want to do is to get a commitment from you that that programme will be taking place in Thunder Bay harbour.

Hon. W. Newman: In the Thunder Bay area, as you are probably fully aware -- I don’t know whether you were there or not -- I was up at the official opening of our Thunder Bay regional office and we discussed at some length with some of the people up there the various problems and things that they are faced with.

We do have a lab for water testing; not doing the highly technical testing on some of the things that you may have seen over the dinner hour -- and I did not see that programme, so I really can’t comment on it in detail -- but certainly as far as Thunder Bay is concerned, we are constantly monitoring the water and testing it. Actually, we are dealing with some chemicals now that may be able to take out any asbestos fibres that are not taken out by filtration; we are working with a particular chemical right now and doing some testing with it.

Mr. Foulds: But I’m not sure you understand my concern. My concern is not merely for asbestos. My concern is for the whole range of additives that we put in the water -- some of the chemicals that we may be adding, such as chlorine -- which the New Orleans study seems to indicate could, in fact, be somewhat more dangerous than some of the things we are frying to take out. I am asking for that whole range of analysis to be constantly taking place in that area and if it is necessary -- and I suspect that it is -- plant development, construction of the water plant, particularly in the Port Arthur ward, the north ward of Thunder Bay, be very carefully looked at in terms of upgrading, and that provincial financing of that may be necessary.

Hon. W. Newman: Of course, we are always prepared to talk to municipalities regarding financing additions or extensions to their plants. We are also constantly monitoring, not only for what we have been talking about in the last few days, but for any other of the contaminants that may be there. We have looked very extensively at, and talked about, New Orleans and their water supply and the effects of chlorine and the carcinogenic effects that could be there, although it is not known for sure.

Thank goodness we in the Province of Ontario have a water supply system which is relatively clean, as far as I am concerned. At this point in time, from what I can check from our people, there is no problem as far as the chlorination is concerned. There was some discussion tonight on the programme, and as I’ve said I’m not prepared to comment on it because I didn’t see the programme.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question in regard to building these anti-pollution plants in towns and villages across the Province of Ontario. After a municipality reaches agreement with you in regard to a plant, a contractor comes in and has to tear up all the streets in the town or village or whatever it is. I have seen that in many cases, if the contract is let in the summer or in the spring, the dust situation is serious. It’s a great annoyance to the people, to the citizens, to the businessmen; and also, if the project runs over until the next spring, the condition of the roads is practically unbearable to those who do business in those towns or villages. People don’t go to do their shopping in those towns or villages, and the businessmen are affected tremendously.

I wondered if you pay toward the control of dust on roads and the maintenance of roads in a certain condition when the project is under construction, because it is a hardship on businessmen of the town. The customers don’t go in to do business, they go to another town instead, and in many cases they never come back to do business in that town for two or three years afterwards.

I wondered if there was assistance from your department for control of dust and to keep the roads in fair condition so that those who do their shopping in that town won’t be forced to go to some other place because it wrecks their cars and everything else.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, to answer that question, when a tender is let for a particular project such as a watermain or sewers in a municipality or town, there is an agreement drawn up with the contractor that he has certain responsibilities to keep the road passable.

I know problems arise from time to time. First we have the contractors who are bonded, if anything goes wrong; and as far as dust control or construction controls, we usually have a man on the project to make sure the contractor is fulfilling his obligations. No matter how good a job you try to do, how capable a job you try to do, when you are laying these lines you do create some problems. Believe you me, I know, because I get the phone calls in my office.

We do try to accommodate people as best we can. Occasionally we run into problems and occasionally we run into problems with a particular contractor. But certainly we do try to do our best to keep the roads open and passable.

I know it’s an inconvenience, especially for downtown merchants, but if we are going to get those water services in and sewer services in, the contractors have to tear up the streets. But certainly we have tried very hard, and I tried very hard this last summer to accommodate the people and their concerns because I know what it’s like in a small town or village when the streets are all torn up. Some people go to another village; it’s a while before they come back and that’s difficult for the merchants, I know.

We are trying to do a better job on that and I think we are. If you have a particular problem right now in a particular area, let us know and we’ll try to do something about it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to return to the item I raised earlier during the session with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), and that was the chlorination of water supplies and the potential cancer hazard in the use of chlorine in water.

I have noticed that the federal authorities mentioned recently that a more extensive study of municipal drinking waters to detect the presence of possible cancer-causing chemicals has been recommended by federal and provincial health experts. They also make mention that more extensive tests are needed to ensure that people are drinking safe water. Have you, Mr. Minister, set safe drinking water standards?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, we have set safe drinking water standards on all kinds of contaminants or bacteria counts. As a matter of fact, I was talking to Mme Sauvé about two weeks ago about extensive testing, to make sure we didn’t overlap in our testing and we co-ordinated our efforts as far as our water testing goes in the Province of Ontario, and I must say we had a very good meeting about it.

Certainly, as far as chlorination reacting with certain bacteria to create carcinogenic problems, we have no record of any problems here at all. Where the problem did occur was, I think, down in New Orleans, where they are using a very undesirable type of water to start with.

Mr. B. Newman: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that such standards also exist in the United States; yet Congress debated for four years a safe water bill and it was only recently passed. Are you attempting to improve your standards on a regular basis so that more and more of the various additives that may come into the water supplies, directly or indirectly, are removed in the filtration process?

Hon. W. Newman: Very much so. We have talked quite extensively in the last few days about asbestos fibres in water, and we could talk about many other contaminants. As you know, I brought in new regulations, reducing the acceptable level of certain contaminants. We are always striving to eliminate even more and reduce the percentage of anything that could be in the water that could be creating a problem for people. We are watching it very carefully all the time.

You were talking about our counterparts on the other side. As you know, we have lived up to our agreement, and will have lived up to our agreement as far as effluent going into the Great Lakes is concerned, by the end of 1975. With no disrespect to our neighbours in the adjoining states, because I think the governors are trying to do a job, they have just had their federal funds to do the effective job we would like to see done there cut off.

Mr. B. Newman: I was going to ask you, Mr. Minister, if you are aware of the use of ozone in an attempt to purify drinking water; the system that is used, apparently, in some of the states in the union and in Germany and France where they claim that ozone, which is oxygen with an extra atom, would not cause cancer, as some officials say chlorine does when combined with pollutants?

There is also technical information provided that ozone swirled through one million parts of water will rid the water of any pollutants. Prof. Phil Bailey of the University of Texas claims that ozone produces only inert materials and no carcinogens when it combines with impurities. The city of Montreal, according to this press release, is spending some $7 million in plant capacity so they can produce ozone right at the source of the water treatment plant. They are to be able to purify some 600,000 gallons of water per day.

Milan uses it and Nice in France uses it, and various other European jurisdictions. Is your ministry experimenting at all with the use of ozone to purify drinking water?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, a lot of our staff have been over looking at the ozone treatment they have in Europe; and we have been down to the United States and looked at ozone treatment techniques. We know that ozone supposedly, at this point in time, does not create carcinogenic problems, but we are not absolutely sure, at this point in time. Not only that, it is a very costly installation to a plant. We have to look at that point too.

We are analysing the whole thing at this point in time as far as ozone treatment goes. There is another form of treatment -- it slips my mind for a moment -- which we are also looking into.

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

Mr. Good: I have one short question on administrative matters as to how this is set up. The $11.5 million represents the total additional moneys paid by the province for sewer and water installations. I believe the federal government supplies 65 per cent of that, of which 25 per cent is forgiven. Is that correct?

What I want to know is, how much of this $11.5 million is the provincial share to municipal sewer and waterworks, which is forgiven, and how much of that is recoverable then over the 40-year debenture agreement with the municipalities?

Hon. W. Newman: I got diverted by one of your colleagues here, but if I could answer it this way: Of the $11.5 million, 15 per cent is forgivable provincially, and the rest, on a chargeback basis over a 40-year basis, is recoverable.

Mr. Good: Did the federal government give you a forgivable portion of 25 per cent?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, that is quite true; but this is basically provincial funding we are talking about at this point in time.

I think I am correct in assuming that we have federal funding for this money? Yes, we have federal funding to back up our provincial funding.

Mr. Good: I would like to go one step further. You say 15 per cent of this represents provincial funds. Does the member for Ottawa East want to talk?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): I am sorry about that.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mr. Good: Then 15 per cent represents the forgivable portion. When the province says its agreements allow the province to pay up to 75 per cent of the works involved, is 15 per cent about the average of what you usually assist the municipalities in their agreements?

Hon. W. Newman: No, in the basic oversizing in building a line in a municipality or a region -- basically in a region we allow for an oversizing -- we have a forgivable portion of 15 per cent. If we go the straight provincial route on building a water plant and distribution centre, or a sewage plant and distribution lines, we have a grant structure which says to the municipality we will pay up to 75 per cent grant to reduce it to $130 per year per person for sewage and $110 for water. Okay?

Mr. Good: What is your average -- 50, 60, 70, or do you pay 75 per cent on all of them?

Hon. W. Newman: I can’t tell you, because in many cases, even with a total of 75 per cent subsidy, they’re well over that figure of a total of $240.

Mr. Good: And then what do you do?

Hon. W. Newman: Then we try to see what we can do to re-tender, to do it in separate projects, or to see what we can do to try to modify the system to see if we can do it within that bracket. If we can’t, then it’s the municipality’s decision whether it should go ahead or not.

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

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the minister about this recent threat of asbestos fibres in the drinking water in different municipalities in Ontario. In comparison to the filtered water system, will microscreening, or the filtering of water through microscreening, remove asbestos fibres?

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t know the exact internal working of the plant, whether microscreening will remove 100 per cent. Will it or won’t it? No, apparently it won’t remove 100 per cent of it.

Mr. Haggerty: Well then, regarding those municipalities that draw water from the Lake Erie basin, will special assistance perhaps be provided to municipalities that do have a microscreening process there now, if they make the changeover to filtering? Will there be a special assistance given to them then?

Hon. W. Newman: No, there will be no extra special assistance because of what might be in the water regarding asbestos fibres. I said yesterday in the House, and I made a very clear and concise statement --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Precise or concise?

Hon. W. Newman: I only have a copy of a report of a very well known medical group that has said there is no major problem, there is no problem as far as carcinogenic effects of asbestos in the water are concerned. The water we’re drinking in the Province of Ontario today --

Mr. Haggerty: But they are not positively sure of that, though?

Hon. W. Newman: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Haggerty: Researchers are not positively sure about your statement, are they?

Mr. Ferrier: Tell us the medical group.

Hon. W. Newman: Would you like me to read you the statement? Would you like me to read it to you? It’s only four or five pages and I’d be glad to.

An hon. member: Not at all, no.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The minister is being provocative, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. W. Newman: No, I’m serious. I think a lot of people got upset and concerned about the water we are drinking in this province when there is no need to be upset and concerned, because the scientific data we have today says there isn’t a problem.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): I think the minister should read it.

Mr. Roy: Do you think he is creating public mischief out there?

Mr. Good: The minister is certainly concerned.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1903 carry?

The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Is there not an agreement between the United States and Canada dealing with the international waterways under which they are policed by the International Joint Commission? Surely the person responsible for polluting the water system in the first place should be stopped. Surely you must have some authority here in the Province of Ontario to make sure that is being policed by the authority responsible for it, and I presume that is the International Joint Commission.

Perhaps there are other polluters on the Great Lakes system too that are dumping mineral waste or other chemicals in the waterway system about which we’re not sure whether they can cause serious health effects. It has also been indicated in studies lately that there are chemicals in the water system that can cause health problems.

I suggest to the minister that surely the dialogue between the United States and Canada has carried on long enough. I believe it was back in 1906 that the first agreement was reached between the two countries. It was established at that time that a proper policing authority would be established and this was the International Joint Commission. I think it’s their responsibility to carry it out and those polluters should be taken to the courts.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I think we’re away from the vote, but I’d be glad to answer the question. I would have to agree with the member in some respect that we do have some problems. But our jurisdiction is within the Province of Ontario and we must deal through your counterparts in Ottawa and ask them to co-operate with the federal US agencies. We can have all the provincial-state agreements we like -- or understandings, I should say, not agreements -- but unless we can get the federal government here in Canada to deal with the federal government in the US and make something binding, we just don’t have the jurisdiction.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Oh, come off it. You have some responsibility.

Hon. W. Newman: Sure we have some responsibility. We carry out our responsibilities too.

Mr. Roy: We shouldn’t have to take that, surely, Mr. Chairman -- that shouting at us.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I won’t be long on this.

It is the minister’s responsibility to monitor the radioactivity in the Great Lakes. We know that our American friends along Lake Michigan are developing quite a few atomic energy plants, and as a result I would assume that a certain amount of radioactivity would leak into the waters and would eventually go downstream and may end up in our drinking water.

Is that the minister’s responsibility? Does he monitor it? And is there no problem whatsoever as far as safe drinking water is concerned and the radioactivity from the various energy plants?

Hon. W. Newman: As far as the plants in the Province of Ontario are concerned, of course, the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada and --

Mr. Haggerty: Don’t you have any responsibility at all?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): For anything?

Hon. W. Newman: The Atomic Energy Commission of Canada and our people and Ontario Hydro are monitoring on a regular basis at these plants -- on an hourly basis. I have one of the largest nuclear plants in the world in my riding, so I am fully aware of the type of monitoring that they do and I am fully satisfied there are no problems there.

Mr. Good: Then he’d better move out and let someone else in.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t be fully satisfied.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1903 carry?

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, does your department or municipal water systems monitor radioactivity in water supplies? Do they or do they not? We have heard at numerous times of various spills that go unreported. There was one in Michigan not too long ago -- not an energy spill; not a radioactive spill; it was another type of spill -- but it went unreported completely and they are attempting to try to trace the source of the spill.

Accidents do happen and I am wondering whether it is either your responsibility or the responsibility of municipal water systems to monitor radioactivity.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. W. Newman: I would think the municipalities would really have that responsibility. I assume that we would have that responsibility if we had any concern as to --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. W. Newman: -- exactly to what extent --

Well I don’t know all the answers, I admit it you know. I am not like some of --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Well anyway, we do some monitoring. We do keep a very close eye on the matter and of course work very closely with the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada. This happens to be one of the ministries that has a fairly good working relationship with their counterparts in Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: Oh come on!

Hon. W. Newman: We don’t always agree. There are certain things we don’t like to see.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Treasurer is pretty good in this line of work.

Hon. W. Newman: But we do have a very good working relationship, so we are looking after the people of this province.

Vote 1903 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This concludes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of the Environment.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Roy: Oh, is the minister going to answer questions?

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the Chair might comment that we have been, in this festive season, a little lenient in the broad discussions on these estimates, but I would suggest that from henceforth we stick to the expenditures that are being discussed.

Mr. Roy:. I agree with that.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Chairman, just a very brief comment. Votes 2302 and 2303 are the result of increased costs as a result of inflation in the programmes that are covered under both of these votes.

Mr. Good: Krauss-Maffei?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps you could advise us, Mr. Minister, of the particular increases and to what programmes they relate? We thought you’d be reducing them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the $1 million amount is as a result of our maintenance programme where we ran into the increased costs of materials and equipment and --

Mr. Roy: There was a snowstorm in Ottawa last night.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- many of them are petroleum products such as calcium chloride, asphalt -- all of these things that have just increased in cost so much.

Mr. Breithaupt: So this is a general thing right across the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes indeed, it is not in any particular job or project.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister -- member for Cochrane South.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Reverend sir.

Mr. Ferrier: I know I am spiritual adviser to some members of this House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Who is he looking at? The deputy whip?

On vote 2302:

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Chairman, there are two questions. Is it now becoming economic to go back to using some cement materials for road construction since, I believe, asphalt is becoming more and more expensive because of the higher price of petroleum products. Is there any thought in that direction?

The other question that I have is a very brief question: On these construction projects, how much supervision does your ministry exercise? If a company has a contract to carry out a construction project and it seems to be delaying it and it’s not being done very well, what power do your ministry’s officials have to go in and say: “Look, move on with this and don’t let it sit in that poor state”?

I can think of one in Timmins, which is why I ask that. Does this affect the cost of construction projects, if they fool around on them, like they did on that one in Timmins? I wonder if the minister could comment on those two brief things?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, as far as cement is concerned we have looked at that to see if we could, perhaps, go to cement rather than using asphalt in the paving projects because of the fact that petroleum costs have increased and increased the costs there. However, we have found that cement costs are going up just as rapidly and there doesn’t appear to be any real saving to be realized by going to cement. However, we are watching both costs all the time in an effort, in fact, to keep our costs down, because they are getting away from us.

As far as the performance of the various contractors is concerned, these are contracts which have a time limitation on them and if they are delayed beyond the time and there is not a very sound and valid reason then, of course, there are penalties imposed upon the contractor for the delays. We do have inspection teams that do go out to the various projects to inspect the work that is being done, to see the performance, to see that the specifications are being met, that the standards of material are being met, and we do have inspectors doing this on all the jobs. If there are delays, we certainly don’t appreciate them and we have, on many occasions, gone to contractors and impressed upon them that they had best get on with that work and not be unduly delaying the project.

Interestingly enough, the delays this year have been much less, for perhaps a very strange reason, in that the contractors themselves are trying to rush their work and get it done in one fiscal year rather than have the carryover, because it’s carryover which has been giving them some problem when they get into next year and try to get their materials, based on this year’s tenders, at next year’s prices. We’ve been experiencing around 13.7 per cent inflation on our construction material costs.

Mr. Ferrier: When you tender a contract to a particular firm and the price goes up six months after the project started, is that the contractor’s responsibility? It doesn’t cost the people of Ontario more if the contractor made the bid at a certain price and then fools around and hasn’t got the job done. That then is the contractor’s responsibility.

Does the contractor have to submit the particular proposals to you as to what he’s going to do at various stages in a project, or do you more or less give him that leeway to do the job and your inspectors go in from time to time? I think there’s maybe a place they do to watch the various parts of the job as it develops. I can think of one contractor who didn’t do the job very hastily and caused a lot of undue interruption for the people in my particular area.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes. Mr. Chairman, we do not have escalation clauses. If the contract is bid and the tender is accepted, that’s the price that the contractor is paid, and if there is a carryover to the following year that’s his responsibility. There are no escalation clauses.

As far as any particular staging of a project is concerned, the ministry does develop the staging. We set the staging programme, as to how the job will be done and in what order. I will agree with the hon. member that there are times when we do have these delays, and we aren’t happy with them either. We try to go in and exercise the authority that the ministry has to get that job done on time and as I say, if it’s not, there are penalty clauses involved in the contracts.

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

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Good: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I want to ask some questions I didn’t get a chance to ask today because there was no question period, Mr. Chairman. The minister was one of the few members of the cabinet who visited Ottawa last Wednesday who got a favourable report in the press. I could see from his actions why he would get a favourable comment.

I must say to the minister, although you are not from eastern Ontario, the people who have service stations and restaurants along Highway 17 found you to be a very receptive minister -- one who appeared to give every indication of being sincerely interested in their problems.

Mr. Laughren: Promised the moon, did he?

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): You are right on.

Mr. Roy: The reason I say this -- and I don’t throw flowers around as a rule --

An hon. member: Watch it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, sir, you sure don’t; I am waiting.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why don’t you duck?

Mr. Roy: No, I won’t take him to Hull tonight -- no, no.

Mr. Laughren: Almost makes the minister wish he was a Liberal again.

Mr. Roy: I want to say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that he impressed the group out there as being one who is sincerely interested in their problems. That’s more than I can say about your colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Chairman: Order, I wonder if you can discuss the subject?

Mr. Roy: Am I out of order?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I’m right on here, supply and --

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member is straying.

Mr. Roy: Yes, but I want to make a few extracurricular comments, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say to the minister that he made a more favourable impression than his colleague did, who made some remarks about Highway 417. He said: “They were asking us to open 417; now that we’ve opened it, the guys along Highway 17 are not happy.” That wasn’t the problem at all.

I think you can understand, Mr. Minister, that these people were able to carry on a business because of the heavy traffic between Ottawa and Montreal. This traffic produced customers; and that’s why they were able to survive. Of course, I can’t understand how a government that says it is sensible to the needs of the people, especially in the eastern --

Mr. B. Newman: Sensitive.

Mr. Roy: Sensible or sensitive. Is sensitive the word? Would you like me to speak in French a bit?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I want to say: How can a government that has been working on Highway 417 for some seven years now -- we’ve been asking that long for the highway to be opened -- open a new highway, knowing that all the traffic that is on Highway 17 would take the new route, 417? All the businesses around Rockland, Bourget and Orleans were catering to that public. How can you open a highway without even putting up a sign?

I’m not blaming the minister -- and I’ve said this to him before. I thought you were receptive when I presented a petition, for instance, in the House about the necessity of advising the traffic coming in from the Quebec border that there are towns along Highway 17, such as Rockland, Orleans or Bourget. There are no services, for instance, along 64 miles of the new 417.

So, Mr. Chairman, the first question to the minister is this: I understand the signs aren’t up yet; when are they going to go up? At least we should allow the public to know that there is food, lodging and services. If they want to get to Rockland, Orleans, Bourget and Hawkesbury, at least they’d know where to go -- and not end up in Ottawa and have to come all the way back. I think road signs are in supply and services. When are you going to put them up?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, when I was speaking to a delegation that attended a meeting in Ottawa, I made a commitment that we would get these signs up. The instructions that I gave to my people at that time were to put up temporary signs at this stage -- get the signs up to indicate these areas -- and immediately proceed to produce the regular aluminum signs that would be going up on a permanent basis.

I haven’t been back in the area. You tell me the signs aren’t up. I was advised just recently that the signing programme was under way and that these signs were going up to indicate food, lodging and the various communities.

Let me just add to that. I agree with the hon. member when he says that when a new highway like 417 is built it should have adequate signs. I make no bones about it. I was personally not very happy at all as the minister when I found out that the new highway was built and open and there was not adequate signing. It’s something, as far as I am concerned and as long as I am minister, that will not happen again on a new highway. There will be proper signing available at the time the highway is opened.

That is a commitment, as far as I am concerned, that the signing will be done at the time the highway is opened, and not waiting until the people experience the drop in business they did. I was very sincere in my commitment to the people that the signing will be there.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, if I may just pursue this point, I want to say to the minister that I tried to reflect what the people said to me about the reception that they got from different ministers. I would like to ask this minister that he speak to his colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa South, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, and tell him that there were plans about making old Highway 17, which follows the Ottawa River, a scenic route. You could build parks and so on along that. It’s a beautiful area. There is still a relative amount of traffic that uses that route.

He ought not to make the platitudes or the cynical comments, such as “We spent seven years to build a highway and then once we open it we get bitching from people on the other highway.” I’m glad to see the minister, Mr. Chairman, respond about the needs of that community. I don’t blame you at all for the signs not being there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, I can’t see how the member for Ottawa South who says he is a representative of eastern Ontario could have allowed this and not been alerted to the fact of the economic disaster that was going to happen to these people along that highway by opening up the new one.

I want to ask the minister and, Mr. Chairman, I might be ruled out of order on this, are there any plans about building? I understand your department is involved in the parks. Are you not involved in parks along the highway? Is that your responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have some roadside parks, just the stop and rest areas that we maintain along some of the highways.

Mr. Roy: What are the plans for old Highway 17? Do you have any?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m sorry, I can’t give you that answer at this time. I don’t know whether we have any immediate plans for developing more roadside parks along old 17. I couldn’t answer you at this time. I can get the information for you and make it available to you.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron and then the member for Stormont.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that the supplementary estimates were predominantly for maintenance programmes.

An hon. member: That’s just the first vote.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I said maintenance programmes only under vote 2302.

Mr. Riddell: All right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Vote 2303 is construction. It would be $13 million.

Mr. Riddell: Regardless of which one, one of the questions which is often asked me by my well travelled friends is why are the shoulders of Ontario highways not paved rather than gravelled periodically and then graded periodically? Have there been any cost studies done of late to compare the cost, say, of paving the shoulders of our main travelled roads as compared to gravelling them so often and then having the grader come along and grade the shoulders? This is all additional cost which we might be able to eliminate if we decided to pave some of these shoulders.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, at this time I can’t give you the answer as to whether there have been any cost comparisons made. Certainly there has been a consideration given as to what costs would be to pave the shoulders. They would be quite considerable. There are some shouldered areas that are paved but they are on the major multi-lane highways. I think the hon. member is probably referring to more of the two-lane highways that we have in the province where we don’t have the shoulders. I can’t tell you what the cost difference would be between paving at the time of construction as opposed to the ongoing maintenance. I couldn’t tell you at this time.

Mr. Riddell: Is it not true that gravel is becoming rather a scarce resource in many of the municipalities and that we might well have to look at the feasibility of paving the shoulders within the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There’s not much question, Mr. Chairman, but that in some of the reports I have seen it has been indicated that there is a shortage of aggregate. I sometimes wonder about these reports, whether they are done for some sort of interest groups. I have seen reports that indicate that there is a shortage of aggregate in Ontario, and it may well be that we are going to have to find some alternative to putting gravel on the shoulders and it may well be paving.

Mr. Haggerty: Don’t say that; the price will be double or more.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: At this stage I can’t say what the savings would be. We do know what it would cost if we were to go ahead and pave at this particular time.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Chairman, the minister well knows that there is more to eastern Ontario than Highways 17 and 417. I’d like to know what the overall policies of his department are regarding bilingual signs. I know you put some in on Highway 401, but they are not fully bilingual, especially for traffic coming from Toronto into eastern Ontario. I am especially interested in Highways 2, 43, 138 and 34. Is it the intention of your ministry to bilingualize the signs, or not to bilingualize, or what, on the other highways?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): How about universal signs?

Mr. Samis: Pardon?

Mr. Deacon: Let’s have universal signs.

Mr. Roy: Universal signs.

Mr. Samis: If you are going to have universal signs, fine, but if you don’t, are you going to treat the people of eastern Ontario on an equal basis in terms of road signs?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t intend, Mr. Chairman, to treat the people in eastern Ontario any different from the rest of Ontario. I don’t think the member would want that. I think what I should say to you is this, I agree with the comment that was made by the member for York Centre, when he indicated that using universal signs --

Mr. Ferrier: What about the people of Haileybury?

Mr. Laughren: Ask the member for Timiskaming.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): The member for Nickel Belt is a good example of a poor member.

An hon. member: Oh, you’re in trouble.

Mr. Samis: I’d like to ask the --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What I want to say to you is that I agree with the member for York Centre that the universal sign is the most adequate sign, that we can all use it. This is what our programme is at the present time, particularly in those areas in eastern Ontario and other parts of this province where there is a large French-speaking population. We want to put in, first of all, the universal signs and then secondly the bilingual signs. We are developing a programme of putting in these bilingual signs. I made a commitment, again when I was in Ottawa, to some of the people in that area who said that they wanted the bilingual signs; we said we’d put them up in the programme and in conjunction with as many universal signs as we can.

Mr. Roy: Better off with universal signs.

Mr. Samis: Will the minister also describe to what extent he’ll be putting up metric signs in eastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am sorry?

Mr. Samis: Metric signs, for the distances?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have been putting up metric signs on various highways throughout the province and it’s part of the start toward the metric conversion. Eventually all of the highway signs will be metric.

Mr. Samis: Will that be accelerated in 1975?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s going to have to be accelerated all along, because as I understand it we are supposed to be metric in this country by about 1980, so we had better be accelerating with signs and other things.

Mr. Semis: Are you doing this at all in co-operation with the Quebec government, vis-à-vis the Montreal-Toronto route, etc. Is there any co-operation involved there?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We co-operate once in a while with the Quebec government on something we don’t agree on. But if it’s a question of highway signs, we have a fairly good relationship with the Minister of Transport in Quebec.

Mr. Roy: I don’t know, you keep visiting Hull.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But I personally haven’t been involved in any discussions concerning signing. We have had other discussions. We met in Hull recently and --

Mr. Ferrier: Oh, tell us more.

Mr. Roy: Did you talk to the government there?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 302 carry?

Mr. Roy: Can I just ask one question on the matter of the universal signs? I want to say to the minister, you visited Europe recently and you saw the plan of Krauss-Maffei there in Germany. I appreciate there is some disappointment, and a few things you want to forget about that system. Maybe you love the country, but the system leaves some questions, as you know. I want to ask the minister --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, it is a lovely place. It’s a good system.

An hon. member: Where is it?

Mr. Roy: A good system? Are you prepared to defend that tonight?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): A good system? Better defend that, eh? You wouldn’t spend a nickel on light rail.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, as you know, they have universal signs across Europe -- the stop signs, how you get off the road and the whole bit. I haven’t seen one universal sign in this province yet. Have you got a programme for that? I haven’t seen any universal signs here, apart from the “yield” symbol and this type of thing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think it’s fair to say that part of the programme has been the standardization of signing. The shapes of the signs have become standardized, certainly across north America, and in some cases they use similar signs around the world. Perhaps I am using the wrong word when I say universal -- which is the programme we want to get into -- but we are using the signs at the present time that indicate --

Mr. Cassidy: The Martians wouldn’t understand them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You wouldn’t understand them?

Mr. Cassidy: No, the Martians wouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t notice the difference.

The signs that we are using are the food and lodging signs that require no wording at all -- simply the symbols that indicate camping, restaurants, service stations, and this sort of thing.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 2302 carry?

Vote 2302 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 2303, construction programme. The hon. member for St. George.

On vote 2303:

Mrs. Campbell: When the question was asked by our House leader as to whether any of these related to any specific projects, was the minister replying to this vote as well as to the first vote, or is there anything specific attached to this particular vote?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing specific at all. This is simply an overall cost increase that we are experiencing in all of our jobs. We put in our estimates what we thought was a reasonable cost, but the tenders have come in much higher. These are increased costs we are facing because of inflation.

Mr. Deacon: Those aren’t adjustments to tenders?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, these are not adjustments to tenders. These are a result of the tenders that came in being higher than what our estimates were.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: How much of this, Mr. Chairman relates to the extension of the Don Valley Parkway up toward Lake Simcoe?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I specifically said that none of this relates to any particular project.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, it has to relate to specific projects -- otherwise the money isn’t going to be spent.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s like a car dealer who doesn’t make anything per unit -- he makes it on the volume.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister and I have had this exchange, Mr. Chairman, during the course of the estimates, so I don’t want to prolong it. But would he reiterate what he said in estimates -- that he personally made the decision to change that road to expressway standards of four lanes and completely divided right of way in order to encourage car commuting from the York region into Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that at the estimates and I don’t intend to say it now.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister then say why it was that he went ahead with a four-lane highway which will have the effect of encouraging automobiles to commute into Metropolitan Toronto and aggravating the problems that now exist with automobile transportation in Metro?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, what I said in the estimates -- and I will repeat it again -- was that I was the one who had made the decision on increasing the capacity of 404 in that particular area. I said at that time that I made the decision, because for some reason the press and others wanted to blame it on the Premier (Mr. Davis). He didn’t know anything about it and I suppose he was probably as surprised as everyone else when I announced it in the House. But I feel that that’s part of my responsibility and I made that decision.

Now, it certainly was not done for the purpose of creating the chaos that the hon. member is referring to. It was done as a result of discussions with various municipalities along that area which showed me traffic figures and the problems that were being experienced, and which also indicated that most of the traffic that was using that particular highway was not local traffic coming down into Toronto but Metro traffic getting out of Toronto.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, can the minister explain to me why it is that during the course of these discussions with the local municipalities along the route of the proposed extension to the parkway he did not at any time have discussions with the city of Toronto, let alone with Metro? Yet at the same time the OMB, which is a government agency, turns around and tells the city of Toronto that it can’t have its particular height bylaw because it refused to talk with Markham and Vaughan and the other townships and municipalities up in that particular area. That’s crazy.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. You are straying from the theme of the estimate.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I will respond to that in this way. I spoke to the people whom I thought I should be speaking with -- the elected representatives of the particular ridings. One of them was the member for York Centre and the other was the member for York North (Mr. W. Hodgson), both of whom were very much involved. I spoke with them; I also met with the members of the councils of those particular municipalities who gave me their input.

Mr. Roy: And you didn’t speak to the member for Ottawa Centre?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As far as the Ontario Municipal Board is concerned, I am not going to interfere with whatever its decisions are unless it comes to cabinet and the decision is made there. I am sorry I didn’t at any time speak to the people from the city of Toronto, and I still to this day haven’t heard anything from them about their concerns. The only person to has expressed any concern to me from anywhere in Toronto has been the hon. member for St. George.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 2303 carry?

Mr. Roy: I have a few questions to ask the minister. In relation to your construction programme here, I want to get back to Highway 417 and the last section of it that’s going to be joined to the Queensway in Ottawa. What is your schedule for the completion date of it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The completion date is relatively early in 1975. We are hoping to continue the work through the winter months, if we can, so we can continue right on in the spring and have it completed early in 1975. We want it well done.

Mr. Good: That’s the week after next.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: By golly, that’s going to keep us humping.

Mr. Roy: In relation to the completion of that last section, I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that his ministry had to purchase crushed stone from Hugh M. Grant, I believe it was, who had a quarry. Because you did not have a signed contract with them -- and I discussed this with your predecessor -- they reneged on the original estimate for the crushed stone, and you ended up paying a lot more money. I can remember the deputy minister at the time, Mr. McNab, said something to the effect that he was not going to buy it from them, but in fact your predecessor was forced to buy for a much higher price and it delayed the final phase of Highway 417.

I want to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, if he puts this type of contract in writing now. I would suggest to the minister that it might be a good idea. People can back out of oral agreements and you can’t force them to stick to the terms agreed. You might as well put them in writing because, as you know, Highway 417 was delayed for a year, apparently because Hugh M. Grant backed out of the original agreement with you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member has pointed out, it was before my time. I am familiar with the problem and it’s correct to say that there was a problem with getting the supply. I fully agree that it’s very difficult to produce a verbal agreement. It has got to be in writing. As far as I’m concerned, our contracts should spell out specifically --

Mr. Roy: Is that your policy now?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is my policy. It’s got to be written down. As I say, I can never find those verbal agreements when I need them, especially when I’m dealing with lawyers.

Mr. Roy: Yes, you’ve got to watch the lawyers.

Mr. Chairman, one further question of the minister.

He was asked a question not long ago by the hon. member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor) about the local municipality of Rideau, I believe, which had said that it would not permit trucks to go through the town of -- what’s in the south end of Ottawa?

Mr. Samis: Come on. The member is from there.

Mr. Good: Stittsville.

Mr. Roy: Stittsville.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Well, that would have to be in the west end.

Mr. Roy: Yes, well, it’s southwest. Does the minister know Ottawa South?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is obvious that the member is mixed up again.

Mr. Roy: The minister will come along. If he sticks around, he’ll find out what eastern Ontario is all about.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s Erskine Johnston’s old stomping ground.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s still the province on our side of the canal, you know.

Mr. Roy: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the local municipality apparently had said that it did not want to allow Dibblee or someone else -- I’m not sure who -- to use a quarry which would cause trucks to go right through the town of Stittsville. The minister’s department apparently overruled the council and allowed them to use the quarry. As a result, there is heavy traffic going through Stittsville now.

What is your policy with regard to that? Do you feel, for instance, that it was a situation where the stone or whatever they were getting out of the quarry was more important than the confusion and the chaos that is being caused in the town of Stittsville? Do you have no objection to overruling local municipalities when they express objections to something like this?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I’m not familiar with, nor was I aware of any of the chaotic conditions that the member was talking about in Stittsville. I am aware of the concern that was expressed by the mayor of the township of Rideau, Mayor Tupper. He and I have exchanged correspondence on this subject. He and I have discussed it. I spoke to the minister without portfolio from the area, who I think was involved. The mayor and I discussed the subject, and he indicated he was concerned. I respect the mayor’s position on this, because he recognized that we had a problem, and he accepted our decision.

Mr. Roy: Well, he criticized it publicly.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, he criticized it publicly, but that was before we sat down and discussed it with him. He’s not overjoyed, but he’s willing now to accept the position. What had happened was there was a certain type of granular sand that we needed. It was the closest and most economical supply for us for that particular job. We have assured the mayor that the job will be done with a minimum amount of disturbance to the landscape. It will be completely restored, and he is quite satisfied.

I said to the hon. member for Carleton East when he asked the question that we do not want at any time to go against the wishes of the local municipalities. In this particular case, my ministry has been granted the authority from the Ministry of Natural Resources to develop wayside pits, but we are subject to the conditions of the Pits and Quarries Control Act. We want to be subjected to those conditions; we want to restore these pits as they should be. In this particular case, the decision was made because we needed that particular granular material and it was the most economical for us for that job.

Mr. Roy: I have just one comment on this. I appreciate that you have sort of corrected the situation or at least you have sat down with the mayor of Rideau. Why didn’t you do it before you made the decision? That’s what causes these things, and that’s why your fortunes are looking pretty grim out there in eastern Ontario and, in fact, in many areas of the province. Why don’t you consult with them before you make a decision, rather than make a decision, cause confusion, get public criticism, and then sit down with them so that they appreciate your problem? I am trying to help you politically.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let me simply say this to the hon. member, that I am really not too fussy about having his assistance politically, to be quite frank with him. You help your colleagues. What I am saying to you is that it is a big province and there are a lot of things going on in all parts of the province and I cannot have my finger on them at all times.

The decision that was made down there was made at the regional level and at the district level. It did not come to my attention until such time as the mayor of Rideau complained. When he complained I immediately went to discuss the subject with him, and I have had meetings with him. But I am the first one to admit that just right at this moment there may be something happening up near the Manitoba border that I won’t hear about until tomorrow. That may happen.

Mr. Roy: Do you have control or not?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: I would just like to ask the minister if he could bring us up to date on the plans for service facilities on Highway 417. I understand there have been problems with tenders east of Casselman. Could you bring us up to date on the plans and the actual happenings?

Mr. Chairman: The Chair fails to see where this really relates to construction and property acquisition, but if the minister wants to answer, he can.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, but it makes an interesting discussion.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a brand new highway. We have been waiting for it for 10 years.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I cannot give you an answer at this time. We have had some problems with the tendering for the service centres. I won’t take the time to explain. I think perhaps I can send you some material as to what we do and how we go about tendering for these. We are trying to get a bigger return for the province out of these service centres and we are having some problems.

Mr. Good: Make them guarantee service.

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

Mr. Foulds: I have just a couple of brief questions. Do you have in this amount included a suggestion that the completion of the Thunder Bay harbor expressway take place within the next two years? Have you given that consideration?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am sorry, I didn’t hear the first part of the question.

Mr. Foulds: Is there anything in this vote, or would this be the vote under which a speed-up for the completion of the Thunder Bay harbour expressway would come -- property acquisition and construction?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There would be nothing in this vote. This is, as I said, very general. It is not on any specific job.

Mr. Foulds: Do you mean this is applied to all projects across the province?

Mr. Roy: You don’t expect him to know what is going on in Thunder Bay, do you?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, I know Thunder Bay.

Mr. Foulds: If it does apply to projects like that, where obviously the ministry will be involved in additional property acquisition for the completion of the Thunder Bay harbour expressway, has the minister given consideration to the letter I sent him about two weeks ago asking for a speed-up of the completion of that from a five-year target date to a two-year target date?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I can’t say that I am suddenly going to make a decision that we are going to cut it back from five years to two years because my budget is strained at times. That is why I am back here asking for increases of this sort and a supplementary estimate as a result of the inflationary trend.

I have all kinds of pressures on me to speed up all of the highway projects. Some people want me to stop them; others want me to start them; and others want me to speed them up. It is a very interesting exercise. Right now, I understand a large group from Sarnia wants me to hurry up and build a highway in memory of the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) but I don’t know whether I will or not.

I can’t tell you I am going to cut it back to two years. I recognize the need and the desire of Thunder Bay to get that done and we will try to do it as quickly as we can if funds are available and we can acquire the land.

Vote 2303 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman: Vote 2202, the land management programme.

The hon. member for Port Arthur.

On vote 2202:

Mr. Foulds: This is entirely devoted to conservation authorities I understand from the item in the estimates. I was just wondering if the minister has had an up-to-date report from -- what is it called now? -- the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority, about the erosion on the Kaministikwia River. I understand they’ve done a report which hasn’t been widely circulated -- I think they only made about 30 copies. I, myself, have not yet been able to obtain a copy -- but it evidently does indicate that the erosion on the Kam River is taking place in some important areas at the rate of a foot a year, which seems to make it extremely urgent that some action be taken on it.

It was my understanding they were applying to you for additional funding to deal with an emergency programme for this. I wonder if the minister could let me know what stage that is at right now.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, the member is quite right. The conservation authorities have completed their study of the Kam River erosion area. I believe there has been some agreement, at least from committee of council, to go along with this particular project.

They have applied to me for special consideration. We’re dealing with that now; it’s in two parts. One would be an engineering study which could be done in the next few months -- during the winter months -- at a cost of some $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000. The project itself of course, would be the second phase.

We’re working that into the budget allocations for next year and I have indicated to the chairman, Mr. Shewchuk, that I should have an answer for him early in the new year as to what part we could fund in the early part of the new year; because they are on a calendar year, they’re not on our fiscal year. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to do something to get the project going. I understand that the McIntyre project has a higher priority than the Kam one.

I might say that we’re also looking at the possibility of negotiating with the landowners. In many of these areas where there is an erosion problem sometimes it’s less costly, it’s more economical for all concerned, to buy out the properties. We’re just having a broad, general look at that; there are no real specifics. We thought that we would look at all those points.

So, early in the new year I should have something.

Mr. Foulds: Just one or two further questions on that, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Ironically, one of the land properties that might be in some, not danger exactly, but which might suffer to some extent is the Old Fort William property -- or is it just the other side of the river that’s affected?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s the other side, down river.

Mr. Foulds. That’s good news anyway.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I might say at this point, if I might interrupt, Mr. Chairman, we have put some retaining material around the Old Fort William site to stop erosion on the curve there. It’s working out quite well.

Mr. Foulds: Just one further question then. In your exchanges with the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority, have you indicated to them that they might just take a look to see if the erosion rate that I’ve seen -- noted in the newspaper admittedly -- of a foot a year, which is extreme, is borne out in a number of key areas? If so, you might suggest to them that the Kam project may have to take at least equal priority with the McIntyre project, or maybe even have priority ahead of the McIntyre project

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I have discussed that with the chairman. I might say that I received a very lengthy petition from a group of residents along the Kam River system, and I met with one or two of the group when I went through the Thunder Bay area. I did mention to the chairman that in setting our priorities it may well be we’ll have to share with the Kam some of those dollars which would normally go on the McIntyre.

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

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I presume there is money in the supplementary estimates here for additional flood control measures in the Grand basin?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Good: Fine, then I can speak on that.

First of all, as well as the acquisition of land in the downtown Galt area which has been reported recently in the paper, I believe the proposal has been made that the municipality, the conservation authority, the provincial and the federal government join to acquire lands which are most seriously affected by flooding. I believe the Grand River flood of this past year has been one of the more serious floods in the province in recent years. It came on the heels of a flood only two years ago.

I would also like to ask whether there is any provision here for acquisition of more flood plain land in the Bridgeport area, which perhaps was the second most seriously affected area in the recent flood of last spring?

Undoubtedly the flood relief money is not in this, but maybe the minister would have an idea what the ultimate grant was in that regard to the Grand River area people.

What I’m concerned about here is the matter which was discussed two years ago, before the big flood of this year. Two years ago when there was a smaller flood of less proportion, which affected only the Bridgeport area, I spent half a day down in the Grand River Conservation Authority office. It was explained to me why the flood occurred and what the problems were. Of course, the major concern at that time was the inadequacy of the flood monitoring system -- the whole monitoring system along the Grand River valley. The engineers showed me dials. Mr. Stephens, Mr. McKyle, Mr. Bower and all the rest were there. They explained to me they can only do so much with the monitoring system they have.

The early warning system was inadequate. That was two years ago, before this disaster struck. It was acknowledged there was no proper system of warning the people along the Grand River valley. In the final analysis, this has to be the responsibility of the authority responsible for that watershed.

I would hope a considerable amount of this $2.1 million will be allocated to the Grand River, which has had more than its share of floods over the past 50 years.

What made this particular flood this year more of a disaster is the fact that there had not been a flood from the time of Hurricane Hazel, 18 years before, up until two years ago.

Why we have had two floods -- one of a minor nature and one of a major nature -- is not very easily understood by the people who have been affected. At the time there were pretty far-reaching and searching questions. Many people were outspoken enough to attach blame. The people who appeared before the inquiry at that time provided a great deal of information.

When you get one flood settled and compensation paid, one has to think: What are we going to do to prevent this happening again? So there are two things that can be done. The first is the acquisition of land, removal of buildings, shoring up walls, building weirs and -- what do they call the baskets?

An hon. member: Gabion groynes.

Mr. Good: Yes. And then the second thing is a better monitoring system along the Grand River valley so that the flood waters within the Shand and the Conestogo dams can be properly controlled.

Would the minister take a minute to explain just how much of this is connected with the Grand River watershed?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the hon. member’s concern for that particular area. It was a disaster that, of course, attracted attention right across this province. The government, realizing the severity of the situation, did come up with a very generous disaster relief fund; $4 for every $1 that was raised locally. I think that took a lot of the pressure off and assisted the area that had been damaged and helped those people who had suffered so severely.

Mr. Good: Not at the start, though.

Mr. Breithaupt: It took a little pressure.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): How big was that fund?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But this is the way the government responded. We are a very sensitive group over on this side of the House conscious of the problems that can be thrust upon these people.

I’m pleased to report to the hon. member that the total $2.1 million in this supplementary estimate goes to the Grand River Conservation Authority. Of that, $1,320,000 is for dam construction on the Speed river, about 1½ miles upstream from the city of Guelph.

Mr. Good: Yes, but money has been voted for that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, but these are additional funds for the project. The $780,000 is for land acquisition in the city of Cambridge. I believe you made some reference to that. So the whole $2.1 million goes to the Grand River Conservation Authority.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: I just wanted to make one point.

Mr. Chairman: All right, the hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: I commend the minister for the provision of these additional funds because, as all members are aware, the flood damage in the region of Waterloo and also in the lower stretches of the Grand River was severe and concerned us all. As the member for Waterloo North said, this dam on the Speed River for which you are providing some $1,320,000 was an older project, but at least you have brought it forward at an earlier time with the hope that its implementation may in effect assist in resolving any future problems.

The land acquisition matters are those which, of course, particularly affect the riding of Waterloo South and the riding of Cambridge, which the former Speaker, Mr. Reuter, represents. Those of us in adjoining ridings are pleased to see that certain lands at least will be acquired to remove them from the problems of the flood plain, and also to make sure that personal injury and property damage is less likely to result should this kind of an occasion unfortunately recur. I am pleased to see that nearly all of this money is being brought into play in order to attempt to resolve some of the problems which we hope will not recur in the Grand valley.

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

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I can’t commend the minister for spending all the flood control money on the Grand River Conservation Authority.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s the end of that vote.

Mr. Laughren: I find it really hard to accept, when for a number of years now there has been a flooding problem associated with the nickel district conservation authority. Every time I go to the nickel district conservation authority, I get a blast from the chairman, partly because of my political affiliation of course, but also partly because I have the effrontery to make an appearance before that august body. I’ve been urging them to institute some flood control for what is known as the Onaping-Vermilion watershed or the catchment area for those two rivers because of the rather severe flooding that occurs there periodically in the spring.

There are a large number of lakes around there with dams that are operated by the private sector -- such as Eddy Forest Products and International Nickel. They are operated privately, under the authority of the Minister of Natural Resources. I believe they try to operate those dams to the best of their ability in order to trade off as best they can the needs of the private sector and at the same time protect any cottagers and ensure there is not undue flooding. But all it takes is a heavy rainfall for about 12 hours in the month of June, coupled with runoff from farther north, and there is a serious problem of flooding.

A couple of things could solve it. One would be major dredging in the river system, throughout both the Onaping and the Vermilion. Another would be a series of dams, and another would be a major recreational lake or darn built in Morgan and Lumsden townships, near Chelmsford.

So far all that seems to be happening is engineering studies. There was a report that was called the Svanks report several years ago which recommended that a man-made lake be created to back up the water in the Vermilion River, and so far the conservation authority appears to be merely studying and not doing very much about it.

I’ve tried working through the conservation authority, I’ve tried working through the Ministry of Natural Resources local offices, and I am continually running into -- I think the current expression which is being used is “stonewalling.”

I would appreciate any comments the minister can make on whether or not he is aware of the problem; and if so if he knows to what extent the studies have been completed and whether or not there is a chance that something will be done about it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member that flood control programmes in about 38 of the conservation authorities are constantly before us. We are very much aware of the need for improved flood control programmes in practically every one of the conservation authorities. Much of the initiative -- I guess all of the initiative, you might say -- has to come from the autonomous bodies, the conservation authorities; they bring it forward in a field of their priorities.

Funding is a major problem, of course -- I don’t have to tell you that -- because we are dealing with a problem that could run into billions of dollars when one considers the overall situation across the Province of Ontario. Therefore, we have to set certain priorities within the budget we are allocated.

To be specific about the area to which you refer, I have had discussions with the chairman of the regional government and the chairman of the conservation authority within the last two or three weeks on the overall situation within the city of Sudbury; and that takes in the whole flood plain area.

I think it’s fair to say we are looking at the criteria for allowing certain buildings in the flood plain area. There is some feeling among a number of experts that perhaps we are being overly cautious. We are going back to the 100-year flood time. Some say we are even going back to the Timmins flood and maybe that’s going a little too far; it may never happen. But we are looking at that overall picture, and it may change some of our thinking.

We are working very closely with the conservation authority and the regional government, because they are concerned with development within the city itself. But to be very specific as to when this would move forward, I regret that I can’t give you any information about that at this particular time because I don’t think there is anything finalized enough for me to give you any information.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, is the minister saying that the next move is up to the conservation authority, that it has to establish the priorities within its own jurisdiction? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I think if they look at their own region, establish their priorities and come up with some engineering facts and some studies, to which you have referred, then we would move along with them, as we have done in other areas.

Mr. Laughren: I assume then that you would suggest I make an appearance before the conservation authority at the next meeting.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That would certainly help.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Nipissing wish to comment on vote 2202?

Mr. R. S. Smith: I just want to ask a question on this since it appears, under the conservation authorities branch, that the moneys are being allowed on the basis of a four-to-one ratio --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s not it at all? This has got nothing to do with the disaster relief fund?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, it has not. The disaster relief fund is over and above this.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay. But it was all related to the disaster in that area. Why was the four-to-one basis used in that instance, whereas three or four years ago in northern Ontario, when there was a disaster in my area, a one-for-one basis was used? If we are going to have another disaster in northern Ontario, are we going to get four-to-one too or are we going to go back to the one-to-one? Is this a new policy that has just been established?

The Minister of Community and Social Services was there at the time and saw the disaster, but we could get nowhere with this government. It was a one-to-one basis, and that was it.

The other assistance that was provided through his department and others was negligible, and it was left to the people there to do it themselves. I know you made a small personal contribution yourself, and that was gratefully received, but it was about all we were going to get out of the whole damned government.

The question remains: Why have a policy for northern Ontario that is one-for-one and a four-to-one policy for southern Ontario? You are a good member to ask that question.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, as I have pointed out to the member, the disaster relief fund is over and above the funds being voted tonight under vote 2202. The four-for-one formula that has been established for the city of Cambridge is new policy. It is something that has been established now. Certainly if there is a disaster occurring of a similar nature in northern Ontario, that formula will be applied. Being a northerner, I might hope to have it sweetened to more than that.

It was one-for-one, but times are changing. This enlightened administration over on this side has seen fit to improve it. I think it’s a very generous disaster relief fund now. We have received compliments and bouquets I am sure, from all members of the Legislature. The mayor of the city of Cambridge, the lady mayor, was very complimentary in her remarks.

This is new policy and it is not a policy just solely for southern Ontario, I can assure you of that. It applies for all the province, but this is not being discussed or debated at this particular time.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 2202 carry?

Vote 2202 agreed to.

On vote 2303:

Mr. Chairman: Outdoor recreation programme. The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a question. We seem to have for the first time here an amount of money, $150,000, provided for snowmobile trail clubs, municipalities and conservation authorities. Could the minister tell me if this money has already been allotted, to whom it has been allotted and how these people are to apply for it if it already hasn’t been allotted?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, these funds are for transfer to trail clubs, to municipalities and conservation areas. I issued a public statement, asking these organizations to contact any one of the 49 district offices. The details are all located within those regional and district offices, so that the approach would be to contact the Ministry of Natural Resources offices within any one of the 49 districts.

We asked that this information be received not later than Dec. 20. Hopefully, much of it is in now. If there’s an extension required, we will certainly consider that extension. This is a programme for this year.

As we pull the programme together, our desire is to groom existing trails on Crown lands, to work very carefully and closely with the conservation authorities and municipalities and the snowmobile clubs, to groom them and maybe make the odd additional extension to already existing trails.

I think the most important thing is to obtain an inventory of all the snowmobile trails throughout the province. We hope in about a year from now, after this year’s experience, to be able to come out with a fully fledged colour map, showing to the general public where the trails are throughout the entire province.

This will be very valuable in the next step. We will form the advisory council for the trails programme which we spoke about some time ago and which the former provincial secretary announced in this House when he said that we would come up with a comprehensive trails programme. To get that kicked off, we would establish an advisory council. They are being brought together and they will look at the information we have gathered this year and make some recommendations for next year’s programme.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I can’t understand why you have an advisory council on trails for snowmobiles.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The advisory council will deal with a comprehensive trails programme. It will deal with snowmobile trails, ski trails, horseback riding, bicycle trails, walking trails, snowshoe trails; all those areas. It will be a comprehensive trails programme.

It may well be that a snowmobile trail is ideal for winter recreation. It may well lend itself to horseback riding in the summertime. These things should all be tied together.

An hon. member: We have got to create more advisory councils. That’s really what we need in this province.

Mr. Roy: We should have a statute or something legislating that.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What we need in northern Ontario is an advisory council to tell people where to walk. That’s really what we need! The thing I want to ask you is how far do you expect $150,000 to go? The LIP programme in my area alone this year is providing almost $40,000 for this same programme.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): LIP programme?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Yes, LIP, the one the provincial secretary doesn’t like, the one he says is orientated only towards Quebec. Every remark you make in this Legislature is opposed to Quebec. You are one of the white backlash in this province.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Order, please. Shall we come back to the vote?

Mr. Roy: Did he insult you? He called you white backlash.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I don’t know how you sit with him. I don’t know the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations --

An hon. member: Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you see the lashes on my back?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Anyway, in the last two days he’s made two comments in regard to Quebec and now he’s made another one tonight.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Can we come back to vote 2203?

Mr. Roy: Did he dare make a comment about Quebec?

Mr. R. S. Smith: He always does. But anyway, how far do you expect $150,000 to go over, what did you say, 49 different districts? You’re going to spend the amazing total of $3,000 per district -- well, that’s what it works out to -- in snowmobile trails. You might get about a half a mile per district for a thousand snowmobiles. If you think you have congestion on Highway 401 or the Parkway, wait until you see these snowmobile trails.

Mr. Roy: That doesn’t even give you enough to buy paint to paint them blue.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I believe, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member were to look at the estimates of that particular expenditure, he will see that there’s $345,000 for salaries and wages, and $430,000 for supplies and equipment. That’s about $775,000 that will be used by my ministry to groom those trails, to buy grooming machines, alpine machines, and to work closely with the snowmobile clubs. The $150,000 is just a transfer payment for what they want to do. But we will be doing the bulk of the work, within our own ministry, in the 49 districts.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In other words, it’s not going to be under the direction of the municipalities or the clubs or the conservation authorities, it’s really going to be done by your ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In specific areas, certainly. I mean, we have to do it on Crown land. There are many areas of this province that don’t come under the control of any municipality, or of any club, or any conservation authority. So it’s obvious, to get the programme going, we’ll co-operate with them in areas where they have jurisdiction and where they have a programme started, and this is what the $150,000 is for. But the bulk of the expenditure will be for buying equipment and the bulk of the work will be done by people within our own ministry.

Mr. R. S. Smith: All this money then is for snowmobile trails? The whole $1 million?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

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

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, at least I found out. You didn’t know.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, this is of great interest. I was going to talk on this matter when we deal with the bill, when we get a chance, but I’ll discuss this aspect of it at the present time.

In my own region, for instance, there are 14 clubs and one association governing the 14 clubs in Waterloo region. I see nothing in the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development’s statement that the presentations were to be made by the clubs by Dec. 20 to the regional offices. That is the first point of concern, because I think our Golden Triangle Association has either an appointment to meet or is about to meet with the Hespeler people regarding the situation in our area.

The 14 clubs have a considerable mileage of, I think, close to 200 miles of trails, but what I’m concerned about is that it be the clubs which have the prime responsibility for the grooming of the trails in areas where all trails are on private property, where consents have to be sought by the clubs. I would think that much of the work on the trails will be done voluntarily by the clubs if the ministry is prepared to provide money for the grooming machines and grants for having it done. I would think that would be a more practical way to do it in areas where you’re not talking about Crown land.

The other thing I would like the minister to know is -- and I’m sorry the Minister of Transportation and Communications isn’t here -- could the minister tell me how many machines were registered last year in the Province of Ontario? Roughly how many thousands?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The provincial secretary informs me --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Blame me in case it’s wrong.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and I don’t have those figures off the top of my head -- the Minister of Transportation and Communications would -- that it is around 200,000.

Mr. Good: Around 200,000 machines?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Registered.

Mr. Good: So at $10 a machine, the registration fee would bring in $2 million. This has been the biggest concern of those of us who --

Mr. Roy: Does the member have to pay it himself?

Mr. Good: -- yes -- those of us who go on snowmobiles. The biggest concern up to this point, up to this year, is that the registration fee in the Province of Ontario has been larger than in other provinces and you haven’t spent one nickel for the snowmobilers from that money; it’s gone right into the consolidated revenue fund of the province.

Mr. Laughren: That’s where it belongs.

Mr. Good: And they’ve taken it. When people operate other vehicles on private land they don’t even need a registration fee, but under the Snow Vehicle Registration Act, of course, you have to register a machine if you are even going to use it on your own property. That’s another arguable point.

I am glad to see here that this whole vote of $1 million is going to be designated for the grooming of trails. Because, let’s face it, snowmobiles have to be regulated, we all agree with that. They have to be licensed, they have to be shown where they can go safely; they can’t be a menace to the community, to the farmers or anyone else, and I think it is only fair and right that we do regulate them. But they think, and I agree with them, that because of the fact that we have the largest registration fee it is high time that the government did something to accommodate them.

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. Good: You pay good money to register other vehicles and the province pays huge sums of money in other areas where there is a cost involved in registering a vehicle.

I was of the opinion, as was the member for Nipissing, that the $150,000 would be the only money expended, but that is going to the conservation authorities which will cooperate in the generation of these trails. Does the minister contemplate that this programme will be along far enough that moneys will be dispensed in this particular winter so that the programme can be developed for this year’s snowmobiling?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks. I am sure he is aware that we share that concern of the snowmobilers in this province who have been picking up their registrations at $10 a year and we wanted to return --

Mr. Good: Pretty expensive. They were $2 before.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. We wanted to return some of those funds to them in the way of providing additional trails and $1 million is the direction we’ve picked for this year.

Mr. Roy: Quebec was ahead of you on that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think it is a very handsome and generous programme for the first year.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): A good step in the right direction, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s right and it may be enlarged next year. We will just see how successful this is.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Algoma agrees with the minister. You had better rethink your position.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You asked a question as to whether it will be implemented this year, and I am pleased to advise you that --

Mr. Laughren: The member for Algoma looked nervous when he said that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We will have some grooming machines in place by the weekend of Dec. 20 to 21, and hopefully much of the equipment will be in place and the programme in full operation by Jan. 2.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Great stuff.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: So the programme is on, it is off and running, but we haven’t disbursed any funds until we get your approval tonight.

Mr. Good: If you are taking in $2 million, why couldn’t you give out $2 million?

Mr. Gilbertson: Oh, come on, you are Liberal all the way.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The sooner you get this passed, the sooner they go to work.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 2203 carry? The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. Roy: How about a motion to sit past 10:30?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Welland South has the floor.

Mr. Haggerty: Have you got a sledgehammer so I can get his attention?

Mr. Roy: Whose? The minister’s?

Mr. Haggerty: No, yours. Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister’s comments dealing with the snowmobile trails that he proposes in the Province of Ontario. I was delighted to receive a letter just recently from the minister indicating that perhaps he has changed his mind in allowing snowmobile use in Shorthills Provincial Park in the Niagara region, and I am delighted to see that he’s moved in that direction.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You don’t drive a snowmobile, do you?

Mr. Boy: But he knows what it looks like and that is more than you can say.

Mr. Haggerty: I can’t afford one.

Mr. Gilbertson: Run him on the roller coaster over at Crystal Beach.

Mr. Haggerty: But I was delighted to see that he had changed his views on the matter of allowing snowmobiles in --

Mr. Roy: All the provincial secretary has seen is the inside of the limousine.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Welland South is speaking.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Who is that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is the same limousine your leader has.

Mr. Haggerty: I was delighted to see the minister change his views in the matter of allowing snowmobiles in the provincial park in the Fonthill and Pelham area. When he says that he is going to allow so much expenditure to allow the conservation authorities to construct trails within their areas, I believe the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority has put a ban on snowmobiles in its park facilities and I was wondering perhaps if there wouldn’t be some direction by the minister that there must be some place where snowmobiles can use certain facilities of the park. It’s only restricted for about two or three months of the year and there is very little damage that can be done.

In my area particularly, there are a number of snowmobile operators and they are looking for some place to go. I’m sure the minister is aware that there are not too many who can use the lakefront, which is a good place to use them in the wintertime. There’s very little damage that can be done to property on the sand beaches.

Perhaps the minister should be thinking of some direction by which his ministry can open more of these sideroads along the lakeshores of Lake Erie to allow more people to get out on the beaches. There is some question as to who owns the property, but I think very little damage can be done on the beaches at this particular time of the year. I know there are a great number of sideroads that should be opened to the waters of Lake Erie. This is one way to get them open. Get these people off the roads. They can go out there and have a good time on the beaches. There shouldn’t be any noise problem at all out there; they are far enough away from residents in the area. I have a great number of them go by my place in the wintertime and I don’t find it a nuisance at all.

I think there should be control on the use of snowmobiles at certain hours of the night. I would suggest perhaps in the legislation that’s coming forward they should set the hour at 12 o’clock when they should be off the roads and even off private property at that time. In certain areas in their closeness to homes, they do cause some problems. I would suggest as a direction to the minister responsible for licensing that the hours be put in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 2203 carry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond for just one minute. I certainly welcome the member’s remarks. I appreciate the recreational value of the snowmobile. I have three such machines in my family. I can say to you that every weekend I’m on my snowmobile enjoying the winter recreational opportunities in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Are they all blue?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not fair. The member for Welland South hasn’t one and I haven’t one but the Minister of Natural Resources has three.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is justice.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) has one. I think he has got a conflict of interest there. He is trying to make some money on the side somehow.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member’s suggestion about the conservation authorities is something I think he could discuss with his own local group. We like to leave them autonomous. I will certainly take it upon myself to discuss it with the council of chairmen of the conservation authorities. If they’re going to provide recreation in the summertime, they should consider certain areas for winter recreation too. I’ll take that under advisement.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 2203 carry?

Vote 2203 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Chairman: Vote 2502, university support programme.

Shall vote 2502 carry?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

On Vote 2502:

Mr. Breithaupt: I think there are a couple of questions that should be asked. It is rather interesting to note the tremendous amount of money -- well over $560 million -- in the estimates for this year with respect to the grants for operating costs within universities. Now we see, at times under which universities are finding great difficulties, an additional amount of $3 million-plus being added; something less than one-half of one per cent. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to advise us of the reasoning behind this figure and the purposes to which these funds will be put.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Yes, Mr. Chairman. This amount is made up of two parts. One is $1,365,000, which actually is the federal contribution to the expansion of the Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph. It is a grant through an agreement with the Minister of Agriculture of Canada, the Minister of Agriculture and Food of Ontario and the Minister of Colleges and Universities and, since it comes to the province as a repayment that we make to the university, we have to deal with it this way.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is just a transfer payment.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It’s a transfer payment. The second part is $1,747,0000, which is 50 per cent recoverable from the government of Canada. That has to do with the estimates which we made based on postgraduate enrolment in December, 1973, and the actual numbers of post-graduate students who were enrolled in the period on which the grants are paid, which is from Jan. 1 to April 1. Because of the slip-year formula we have to do the calculation in December. The pattern in the post-graduate field is that there are a lot of enrolments after Jan. 1. That is the major part of the amount. There is a relatively small portion related to drop-outs or drop-back-ins, but that is basically the amount.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, there are two comments I’d like to make, particularly concerning grants to universities. I thought that when the supplementary estimates were being brought forward by this minister, he’d have some introductory remarks to make about some of the problems that the universities are facing now.

I was particularly interested in the minister’s comment a week or so ago in this chamber when he talked about the problems of universities operating under deficit financing and whether they would be allowed to borrow on their own as individual institutions or whether that would be done on their behalf by the Ontario government.

He mentioned at that time that there were something like $200 million in -- and I’ll never forget this phrase -- unencumbered funds, which were available to the universities.

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, Mr. Chairman, I said that the universities’ statements for 1973-1974 showed assets of roughly 200 million, of which about $90 million appeared to be unencumbered.

Mr. Laughren: I see. Well, it’s that word “unencumbered” that really intrigues me. I’m assuming those are funds that are there from reserve funds that have beers built up for capital projects and so forth over the years.

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could save a little time here. What I meant was funds that were not specifically allotted by endowment or something like that to specific projects. What I was talking about were the amounts set up in operating and capital reserves and some other university funds that are not specifically entailed to a purpose.

For instance, when the University of Toronto sold the Connaught Laboratories, it received some $20 million. That money is in the bands of the University of Toronto. I understand they used some of the interest for research grants, but specifically that money could be used in the university system as an advance to deal with interim deficits for the whole system. There is no legal barrier to stop that.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that what the minister is saying is that the universities should perhaps share their deficits and their surpluses with one another. If he is saying that, I trust he’s had consultation with the Ontario Council on University Affairs, or at least with the committee of presidents of the universities.

Is he really saying to us, through the back door, that what we need in Ontario is a University of Ontario that is administered and financed by the Province of Ontario? If he is saying that, or if he is putting up a trial balloon to see what kind of a reception it gets, does he not see that part of the strength of the university system of Ontario is its diversity? Each one of these institutions is creating a kind of history in itself, and there’s a great deal of pride in the various universities in the province. I would suggest that’s true even of the newer universities that have been struggling for the last years.

I’d be interested in having him share his views with us on that, because I think it is a remarkable departure from past policies of the Ontario government.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, what I said was that in the first place it was none of my business, since I believe the universities should be competitive and autonomous, although I have some reservations about the degree of competition because of duplication and insufficient funds to pay for duplication. What I said was that the universities within themselves have the funds to set up a loan fund to tide them over as a group and it wouldn’t seem like a bad idea if they talked among themselves.

Mr. Laughren: Can you imagine John Evans saying to Ed Monahan at Laurentian, “Here Ed, I’ve got a few million here we’d be glad to share with you. We know that you are an emerging university” -- I know that’s not the term you use any more -- “You are a struggling young university and you don’t have the kind of economies of scale that we at the University of Toronto do and we’d be glad to share with you our largesse, built up as a result of our size or of our operating efficiencies” or whatever? Has anyone led you to believe that the universities which have those funds will be willing to share them with those that do not?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can’t answer that question. That’s a question I’ve asked.

Mr. Roy: Well, has any university got a surplus to share?

Mr. Laughren: In other words, you are floating a trial balloon to see if the rich universities will share it, and I would suggest that that is a red herring because you know that they are not going to do that.

Are you not aware that the system you’ve created makes it virtually impossible for the smaller universities to cope with the growing costs? They simply cannot effect the kind of economies that the larger universities can. I agree that it is an expensive system we’ve got, but I would suggest to you that that is because it’s a campus-oriented system, one that depends upon a professor at the front of the room and students in front of the professor.

Perhaps the direction of this ministry should be to try to diversify the delivery system of post-secondary education in the Province of Ontario. I don’t see the ministry experimenting with contract learning, as they are in the State of New York. I don’t see the ministry experimenting with educational television at the post-secondary level. I don’t see you experimenting with correspondence courses at the post-secondary level, or even ideas like Frontier College has in the Province of Ontario.

I’m wondering why you don’t say to yourself, “We haven’t had a fresh idea in this ministry since Bill Davis created the community colleges. Now, what have we been doing since then, other than creating a very, very expensive infrastructure within the ministry and out there in the colleges and universities?”

What are you going to do about that? Do you see any end to this crisis in financing in the post-secondary level? I can only see it getting worse, with you granting them 7.4 per cent increases and salary demands going up by 15 to 25 per cent a year. Salaries are about 80 per cent of the total operating costs of the universities. I would suggest to you that unless you get the ministry moving in terms of alternatives to delivering post-secondary education, you are going to have this problem year after year after year at the post-secondary level. I would very much appreciate knowing what the minister sees as a way out of this, because I don’t think it’s conducive to a healthy post-secondary educational system.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I have asked the Council on University Affairs to pursue, in the meetings that it is presently conducting with the institutions, a number of the matters that the hon. member has referred to and also a number of others that I suggested to them.

Mr. Laughren: Did you suggest perhaps the sharing of facilities between the colleges and the universities, which is virtually nonexistent now? Even I realise that it is really too late for that now. In the most incredible move that I have ever seen in any educational system in the world that I am familiar with, you have created, two parallel systems with the colleges here and the universities here and equally grand campuses across Ontario, and now you wonder why they are not cooperating and sharing facilities. Well, that shouldn’t be too difficult for you to see.

I wonder if you read the report that Lakehead University made to the Council on University Affairs? Near the beginning of that report they said that the Greeks had a definition for a university and that it was a library of great books.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Laughren: I think what they were trying to say was that a university is more than bricks and mortar, although I don’t want to try to interpret literally exactly what they said. I would encourage you to get some fresh air into the ministry.

Maybe when you get the -- what are they calling it? -- the Cul and Rec ministry, things will improve.

An hon. member: We’ll look after that next year.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think the term was “the smocks and jocks.”

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 2502 carry?

Mr. B. Newman: No. I wanted to ask of the minister if any grants are made to church-supported or to church-associated universities.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, last year was the first year that church-related universities received grants for non-theological courses. There is presently a submission to the ministry through the Council on University Affairs for support of theological training, and no decision has yet been reached on that.

Mr. B. Newman: But if you have made grants to church-supported universities for the non-theological portion of the university, is that not contrary to government policy?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It’s government policy.

Mr. B. Newman: All right. You have two policies in education; one for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and a different one for the Ministry of Education.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The policy for some time was that there was no support for church-related institutions. I think it was two years ago that it was changed --

Mr. Deacon: Just a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Auld: A year ago -- for the courses that were not theological.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the minister in relation to vote 2502. The council had representation from the two universities in Ottawa. You have certainly heard about the plight of Carleton University and the problems that they’ve had with St. Pat’s College. That’s been in the news in the Ottawa area. A decision related to St. Pat’s has been stalled for a period of a year. Of course, the problem with the University of Ottawa in my riding is the question of their bilingual programme.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that there is this famous BIU system and there is difficulty in getting agreement from all universities about changing it. Because of its high percentage of students in its arts programme, science programme, and others, Carleton is in a difficult position as related to other universities -- for instance, the University of Ottawa. But then, the University of Ottawa has a problem with its bilingual courses -- the extra cost related to that.

Now, do you see a new formula being proposed for a more equitable distribution to assist universities such as Carleton, or are they going to continue with the old one? If you stick with your grants of this year to Carleton, they are going to keep accumulating deficits. It comes down to the policy we were discussing in the question period some time ago: Are we going to ask universities to get involved in deficit financing?

I want to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, can he see any immediate solution to their problem? Or is it strictly a question of the universities sharpening their pencils as the Treasurer said -- and increasing the teacher-pupil ratio and this type of thing?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There are about 12 questions there, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, there is nothing new in universities having deficits. They have had them over the years, and they have solved them. I think I mentioned that in their estimates last year, at the beginning of the year they predicted a total deficit of $13.5 million. When the smoke cleared away, it was $1.8 million.

Mr. Roy: That is for all universities?

Hon. Mr. Auld: As far as the formula is concerned, I have said -- and at least one if not two of my predecessors have said -- that the present formula needs to be altered. There have been committees. In fact, there was an Ontario university council group that attempted to wrestle with this problem, and didn’t come up with a solution. Because the real trick is, if the dollars are constant and you change the formula, for everybody who gets another dollar somebody gets one less.

I am not convinced the problem is quite the way it is presented by some people. If you look at the figures and look at enrolments, if you look at student-teacher ratios, it is rather interesting to see that hasn’t varied by more than 0.2 per cent in the last four years. Now, enrolments have grown in some places, they have been stagnant in some places, and in some places in those four years they have actually dropped. But it is rather interesting to see this relationship which seems to continue, no matter what the BIU is, no matter how it is made, even with a slip year.

There have been warnings given for four years that the great growth was slowing down, that the funds would not be increased at the same ratio they have been for the years previously when the great growth took place, and I am confident that it can be worked out.

I appreciate that it’s very difficult, and that’s why I have said I assume there will be some deficit financing for a year or two. I don’t really see how a number of the institutions can avoid that. But again I go back to what I said a few moments ago. A number of the institutions have had deficits in the past, some of them quite a few years ago. Some of the older institutions have had this problem and they have solved it. I think together we can solve it again.

Mr. Roy: There wasn’t a deficit, for instance, in institutions that were privately run or run by some religious order or something, where they owned property or the buildings or whatever and could borrow on that type of property. But you can see, for instance, under the new system, that institutions which start lending to universities, if that becomes necessary, are going to need some form of collateral. I am just wondering how that’s going to work out. I can see real problems raised there.

What concerns me is that there seems to be some suggestion in your statement that universities are in fact inflating your deficits to get people alarmed. I suppose one could carry it a step further where you have a situation like you had in Ottawa, where St. Pat’s College, which is a small college, with a long tradition in the Ottawa area, giving a different approach to education than the larger university, is being threatened with closure. That concerns a lot of people in the Ottawa area.

Mr. Ferrier: All over the province.

Mr. Roy: Yes, and I suppose that’s just a start. If it happens in Ottawa, they are going to start looking someplace else. What is concerning me about it is that we may wake up in four or five years, having done away with the small colleges, and find out that wholesale education or mass education doesn’t work and we start going back to it.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): We are also concerned about Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: Why, sure. So is the minister saying in fact that there’s some scheme or attempt on the part of universities to sort of inflate or cause a bit of panic to get some public attention to their plight?

Secondly, how do you operate a budget on deficit financing on the part of a publicly run university? I just wonder how you envisage this.

Thirdly, how are universities supposed to operate when in fact your grants to them are less than the inflationary factor? We knew that some 80 per cent of their costs are wages and we know that they are going to fall behind at the 7.4 rate -- at least at the rate of inflation that we have had in the past.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, if you have a university building and you could borrow money on it 10 years ago, you could borrow money on it today. I don’t know how you borrow money on a university building. If somebody is going to foreclose, what do they use it for? I am not going to get into that discussion. All I can say is that if you could do it 10 years ago, I assume you could do it today.

An hon. member: Put up another Rochdale.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As far as St. Pat’s is concerned, I said in this House a few weeks ago that it was an internal matter and that I assumed that it would be solved. I understand that they have reached agreement and St. Pat’s continues.

The third thing that the hon. member said -- I have now forgotten what it was -- it was rhetorical, but I thought I might try to deal with it. I guess the hon. member has forgotten too. We’ll deal with that some other time.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): We just want to report that we’ve done a lot of work.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The member for Ottawa East hasn’t done much. Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I want to tell the members who are present we will proceed in accordance with our agreement at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I’m not sure what agreement we’re talking about and who made it. I can recall, Mr. Speaker, as you can recall, meeting last evening and agreeing to meet today at 2 and not the regular hours, and tomorrow at 2 and at the regular hours, and on Friday at 10, if need be. I’m not too sure what the agreement was and among whom. I understand there were discussions prior to the meeting we had last evening. I want to suggest to you, sir, that in your presence we agreed to meet at 2 o’clock today, at 2 o’clock tomorrow and at 10 o’clock as usual on Friday, if necessary.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, that is totally --

Mr. Deans: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the House leader to keep in his seat until I have sat down.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Take it easy.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is more than some of his members do.

Mr. Deans: That’s fine, but I didn’t interrupt the minister. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you would recall to your mind exactly what we spoke about last evening.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, dear! The member for Wentworth is being provocative.

Mr. Speaker: I find it very difficult for the Speaker to get involved in such a debate.

Mr. Deans: No, but you must admit that you were there. There is no agreement, and we will sit at 2 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: As I recall the private discussion, there was no agreement, but a motion may be made. It had just been intimated we would have a regular day on Wednesday and a regular day on Thursday. I know of no other agreement. I will abide by any motion which the hon. House leader may wish to put to the House or whatever it might be.

Mr. Deans: It is after 10:30 by the way.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That really doesn’t matter. Don’t bring that into the argument.

Mr. Speaker, I would like very much, if you have an opportunity, for you to investigate Hansard of yesterday, whereby the whip made the commitment we would sit at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning. I also had agreement from the House leader of the Liberal Party, and I think you will agree I’ll honour that. I just want the whip of the NDP to stand up and say he agrees.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He’s nodding his head.

Mr. Speaker: I can’t answer that. I would suggest if there’s a desire on any part to meet at 10 o’clock, perhaps we might move a motion to that effect. That depends on the House. I know of no agreement. That’s all I’m saying really.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Let the whip speak.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I can shed some light on it. I did speak earlier yesterday afternoon when things were in a more sane atmosphere, to agree along with the House leader of the Liberals to sit at 10 o’clock Thursday morning on the assumption that we didn’t sit today. There was an agreement made among the three House leaders in your presence last night that superseded that. What went on there I’m not prepared to say. The House leader is accurate. We did make that decision on the basis that we wouldn’t sit today.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is beginning to sound more like a used car lot every day.

Mr. Speaker: It’s a little complicated. Perhaps it could be simplified and some agreement come to, if the hon. House leader would care to make a motion, if he wishes, or carry on with a regular day. I’m in your hands.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to hear from the House leader of the Liberal Party on this question, because we agreed.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Why are we protracting this business?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I think in the discussions that were made last night we had acknowledged we would be prepared to sit tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock if required. I had a note from my leader who apparently had discussed this matter with the House leader of the government. The note was to the effect that he was prepared to accede to sitting tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock with the question period at 2 o’clock, as we have done on certain occasions in the past. Accordingly, I think the matter would best be resolved if the government House leader would make a motion with respect to the sittings for tomorrow --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will have another division.

Mr. Breithaupt: No, I think at that point we can then proceed however the House may decide.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the record and of this legislative assembly, I simply want it understood that agreements that are made between honourable gentlemen are honoured. That is all I want.

Mrs. Campbell: The government House leader hasn’t honoured that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I can only take personal exception to that remark. I attended a meeting last evening, as a result of the bungling of the government House leader --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: -- and I distinctly remember the discussion. The discussion did not at any time centre on meeting at 10 o’clock on Thursday. I agreed to meet today at 2 o’clock. I agreed to meet tomorrow at 2 o’clock. If the House leader wants to move that we meet at 10 in the morning, then I am not going to oppose him. But I tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, there was no agreement; and if he wants to make agreements, he meets with me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It seems to me that people have been talking to various people and not with the right people at the same time. To clarify this, I would suggest that if it is the desire to meet at 10 o’clock we should have a motion to that effect. If not, we should have a motion to adjourn.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the House sit at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning, and that the question period be at 2 o’clock.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.