Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to announce to the members of the House that in the east gallery today there are 65 students from the Queensmount Senior Public School in Kitchener, under the direction of their principal, Mr. Jack Bean. They are visiting the Legislature along with a number of other classes from that school over the next several weeks, and I’m sure the members would wish to welcome them.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to introduce to my colleagues of the Legislature, a delegation of very fine ladies from the city of St. Catharines, members of the Progressive Conservative Women’s Association of that municipality.

Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): Mr. Speaker, seated in the west gallery are some 31 students from St. Lucy’s Separate School in the company of their teacher, Mrs. Bradwell from the great riding of Bellwoods.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S YEAR GRANT

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech stated that the government intends “as a deliberate policy” to encourage “greater opportunities for women,” and I’d like to advise the House today that the government is providing the Ontario Arts Council with an additional $150,000 for new cultural projects directly related to International Women’s Year. This additional money, together with $50,000 which the council has already allocated from its own funds, is intended to encourage wide recognition and support of the role of women in the cultural life of the province.

Since it announced its initial appropriation of $50,000 in February, the Arts Council has received more than 200 inquiries from interested artists, sculptors, writers, performers, film-makers, dancers, playwrights, choreographers and others suggesting projects directly related to International Women’s Year. At that time the council proposed grants up to $1,000 to artists; $3,000 to performing groups; and $2,000 for the administrative costs of any group co-ordinating cultural programmes for International Women’s Year.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the council through its chairman to suggest ways that this additional money can enrich this programme and assist other innovative ways of recognizing the role of women in the arts. I have suggested that he consult groups, including the Ontario Council on the Status of Women, the organizers of the Festival of Women in the Arts this summer, and the Ontario Councils on Multiculturalism and on Franco-Ontarian Affairs among others, to invite their suggestions and to ask them to encourage artists and performers familiar to them to consider original undertakings related to International Women’s Year.

This programme by the Arts Council is part of the extensive involvement of my ministry and its agencies to recognize the role of women in the cultural and recreational life of Ontario. Many members will be familiar with the “Women in Science Day” at the Ontario Science Centre earlier this month. Both the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum are preparing special presentations on the contribution of women to arts and science.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): When is the election?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Later this year the historical and museums branch will be erecting plaques to honour a number of women.

Mr. Lawlor: A little tidbit for everybody now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would like particularly to mention the late Charlotte Whitton whose contribution to public life in Ontario is recognized and applauded by all of us.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That will certainly help.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): That will be really good for women’s lib.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Who wrote this stuff?

Hon. Mr. Welch: By my own hand.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has to be kidding.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention our concern about women in sports and recreation in Ontario and the efforts we are making to assist them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is true that the accomplishments of some of our women athletes have brought world acclaim to Ontario -- athletes of the stature of Barbara Ann Scott, Glenda Reiser, Beverley Boys and Abbie Hoffman, to name four -- but we are aware that there is still great undeveloped potential in athletics among women and an imbalance in the participation of women in recreation activities.

As a preliminary step, we have assigned a consultant to work with the sports governing --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Did the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White) mastermind this? Is this today’s meeting?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- bodies which have activities specifically for women to increase participation and upgrade the level of training facilities. In this regard, we have made a special grant to the Ontario Ski Council to be used to upgrade women skiers particularly in northern and northwestern Ontario where Laurie and Kathy Kreiner, two members of Canada’s World Cup team, received their early training.

Mr. Speaker, these are particularly appropriate, I’m sure that the members of the House would agree. I do hope members pay attention because we have some very --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What does the minister mean? We are hanging on every word.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- we have some very fine women here from other parts of the province and I have been trying to impress upon them the courtesy that is usually extended in the House from the other side.

Mr. Martel: When did that happen?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Particularly by the member for St. Catharines.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, these are particularly appropriate areas of recognition by the government and our ministry because women have long enjoyed a high level of equality and recognition in the visual and performing arts, literature and in other cultural activities and in sports where talent and energy and creativity are the principal measures of stature and worth.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): That’s what is wrong. The minister has the right portfolio.

PUBLIC HOUSING FUNDS

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that I have received a verbal commitment from Hon. Barney Danson, Minister of Urban Affairs --

An hon. member: Better get it in writing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that will increase Ontario’s allocation of public housing funds by $30 million for the year 1975-1976. While we are very pleased with this additional allocation, I must point out that it still falls far short of the funds we require this year in the vital area of social assistance housing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are getting used to that too little, too late speech.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Originally we requested an allocation of $130 million for provincial projects, plus $20 million for Metropolitan Toronto senior citizen housing. This would, we projected, allow us to build 2,000 family rental units and in co-operation with Metropolitan Toronto 8,000 senior citizens’ units.

When the allocations were first announced late last month, we found we were allocated a total of only $50.4 million for social assistance housing. This would have allowed us, Mr. Speaker, to build only 2,000 senior citizens’ units, including those in Metropolitan Toronto, and approximately 500 family units. With the additional $30 million, we will be able to build another 1,500 to 2,000, units depending on how the funds are divided between senior citizens and family units.

While this is a great improvement, Mr. Speaker, it still gives us only half the number of units which we require and deem necessary for this coming fiscal year. We have, however, an additional commitment from Mr. Danson to review the budget allocations before the end of May. We hope to convince him to release more funds for public housing at that time, which will allow us to build more units which we deem are necessary for Ontario. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

SECONDARY SCHOOL DROPOUT RATE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the policy secretary for human resources -- is that the member for Scarborough East’s title? --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Social development.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- social development -- in the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), if she is aware that the ministry or the policy secretariat associated with education has any kind of a review of the dropout rate of students in the secondary schools across the province that would indicate that the record of Toronto, with a dropout rate this year of close to 25 per cent, is a pattern that is being experienced by the school boards right across Ontario?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the pattern developing across Ontario, but I am aware that there has been some misinterpretation of what “dropout” constitutes. I understand that the event of a grade 12 student dropping out and going to community college is sometimes interpreted as a dropout. The Minister of Education will give the member further details when he is here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since I think many people in the province were deeply shocked at the statistics that came from the Toronto boards, would the minister undertake to give a review of the statistical situation having to do with dropouts from our school system, since in fact it clearly indicates that the students themselves are dissatisfied with the quality of education that we are providing?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Education will have a report to give to the House.

Mr. Lewis: Has the provincial secretary discussed that at the policy secretariat level -- the situation in the high schools which this dropout report simply confirms but which surely was becoming evident throughout the province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: This current situation has not been discussed yet. It will be discussed this week at the policy field meeting.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition?

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT RESORT DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Minister of Housing: Has he given his approval to the application on behalf of a private developer for the establishment of a 7,500-population community on the Niagara Escarpment? Is this decision basically his, or does it lie with the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), or is the government simply accepting a recommendation of the commission associated with the control of development on the escarpment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this matter, I believe, was brought to the attention of the members of the House by the Leader of the Opposition on Friday morning. I am delighted he has asked me the question so that we can endeavour to bring out the true facts of the approval.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition, I believe, ignores the fact that since February, 1973, the Beaver Valley official plan designated approximately 1,250 acres -- actually it is 1,248 acres -- for a resort development at this particular site. What we have had before us in the last few months and brought before me for approval is a development occurring over an approximate acreage of 288 total acres. I have approved this development, subject to equal amounts or larger being taken out of the development area and have done so by way of letter to the planning board and to the members affected.

I want to bring out to the members of this House that the Niagara Escarpment commission gave us its approval in writing of this particular development. At no time do we go against the wishes of the Niagara development commission or the aims of the Niagara Escarpment. So, I believe, Mr. Speaker, now that the Leader of the Opposition has all the facts, he might agree that the approval was appropriate.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, having to do with the appropriateness of the approval: Did the minister undertake to consult with those people who are very strongly opposed to the concept -- people such as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the largest single group of ecologically minded people in the province, whose president said, and I quote: “A town of 7,500 is as compatible with that superb natural environment as a stockyard is with the centre of a residential area”? Did he consult with them or, in fact, was the decision made for him and dictated to him by others?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, let’s review how development is agreed upon and how the official plans, amendments and zoning bylaws are approved. They are approved after there has been prior consultation with those in the area. When the telegrams came to me, and there were two, suggesting that they were not in agreement with this development, it was at the very last minute, if not past the last minute. They had ample time before to bring their objections before those people who are responsible for the agreement to this development proceeding at this particular time. Although I did not in the last week contact those who have indicated their disapproval, I have talked to some members of the Niagara Escarpment commission and have assured myself that the majority are still in favour. There may be a minority, which I think it is fair to say happens in all cases. We cannot totally agree on any development.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, just following that point: Is it not true that there were a significant number of the Niagara Escarpment commission who oppose this development in toto and that there were a number of others who approved it only reluctantly because of the commitment which was made prior to the formation of the commission, but that, in fact if the minister was to ask them to review it now, again in the light of the commission’s mandate, the project would be turned down?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think that’s a supposition that the leader of the NDP --

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister try it? Why doesn’t he try it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- is bringing forth today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: According to the chairman himself. The chairman himself says that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Let me tell the members this right now, there is no way that I am going to go back to the Niagara Escarpment commission or any other commission on every individual project that comes before us.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on. This is a major project.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If they send us a resolution, Mr. Speaker, and it’s in writing, I think that’s good enough, even though the member apparently doesn’t believe what the commission does.

Mr. Lewis: No, no, no. I am saying the commission did it reluctantly and that the minister should take them off the hook.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A supplementary of the minister: By whom was the environmental study as to the impact on the environment done, or was there any study done regarding the impact on the environment of this municipality on the Niagara Escarpment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, all developments have to go through the Ministry of the Environment and other associated ministries that are affected by a land use development. As to the name, I cannot give it today. What I would say is this, that the development was taken into consideration on the basis that there are three phases and after the first phase has been completed, if it is decided after that the proposal should not be carried out, as has been indicated, to a total of 200 and some acres, well then we can review it at that time. But the information that I have is that it met with the approval of the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary if I may -- one further supplementary: Leaving aside February, 1973, and what occurred then, does the minister himself believe as he looks at the project objectively that it fits the mandate for the Niagara Escarpment and the Niagara Escarpment commission as it was set out for us in this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, if I had felt that the development met totally the aims of the Niagara Escarpment commission then I wouldn’t have requested that a similar amount of acreage be reduced from the overall development in that area.

Mr. Lewis: So the minister himself has qualms about it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That is why I asked that the total amount of acreage be reduced.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister wasn’t deeply troubled, like the chairman of the Niagara Escarpment commission? He was not deeply troubled by it? The chairman of the Niagara Escarpment commission is quoted as saying they were deeply troubled by the decision.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, there are many days in the Ministry of Housing that I am deeply troubled and that could have been one of them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe not enough to do any good.

Mr. Lewis: He is superficially troubled almost all the time.

DORE WRECKING CO.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Government Services: Does he feel that his new-found dedication to the concept of awarding tenders to the lowest bidder is appropriate in the award of the tender to the Dore Wrecking Co. of the United States for the wrecking of the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital? In view of the fact that this American company is now forbidden from operating in the state of Colorado because of the death of two workers, that the company has been fined $10,800 in California for finishing a demolition project eight months after the deadline and that it is a company on whose behalf the Zurich Insurance Co. in the United States had paid out one-third of all the claims of the American demolition contractors, does he still think it is worthwhile accepting their contract or their tender under those circumstances?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): How did they get on the approved list?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I don’t know what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is referring to when he refers to some new-found policy of awarding tenders to the lowest bidder.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’ve always thought that the minister wanted to do that when it was possible.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Every year, Mr. Speaker, my ministry calls tenders on several hundred projects of one size or another.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And the government awards the contracts to whomever they want.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: These tenders are now listed, Mr. Speaker, and have been for the last two years anyway, maybe three, in the annual report of the ministry, listing as well all the bids that were received. In the odd instance in which a contract was not awarded to the low bidder, there is an explanation in the annual statement of the ministry as to why the contract was not awarded to the low bidder. I don’t know whether there were any in the statement I tabled a couple of months ago or not; there were, I know, one or two during the year before.

In the particular case the hon. member for Brant mentions, tenders were called on two wrecking contracts, one in London and one in Hamilton. The Dore Wrecking Co., which I might mention is a company licensed to carry on business in the Province of Ontario by my colleague, the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), was the low bidder. They were some $58,000 lower than the third bidder. The second bid, which was somewhere in between, was disqualified because the company had not enclosed a certified cheque with its bid, so the bid was informal.

The firm was thoroughly checked out by my ministry, with the Workmen’s Compensation Board and other people, and found to be in good standing. They have carried out demolition contracts in the Province of Ontario at other locations.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe they’d be better here than there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We were assured by the firm, and we have it in writing from them, that local labour, local subcontractors, local equipment suppliers will be used, and that only their supervisor will be an employee of the American company as such. Taking all this into consideration, Mr. Speaker, I felt it was totally appropriate to award the contract to the low bidder and save the taxpayers of Ontario $58,000.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: The minister then was aware of the record of this company in the United States when he awarded the contract, is that so? The record of debts, the fact they are disqualified in one state and the fact that one-third of the insurance payouts from Zurich, which insures the American demolition contractors in general, goes for payments demanded from this particular company?

Mr. Deacon: And they may have trouble getting their insurance too.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the matter to which the hon. member refers involving the Zurich Insurance Co. The fact a company has had an unfortunate accident on a job and had an injury, I don’t think should disqualify the company from bidding; although none of us, I’m sure, want this to happen. I was assured by my staff this company would, and we have it in writing from them, adhere to all the rules and regulations of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Construction Safety Association of Ontario on this demolition job.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I might also point out that on the London contract, Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member didn’t mention it, that the firm that was the low bidder on that particular job -- I don’t recall the name at the moment but it was a London firm -- there were some question asked regarding that contract as to whether the firm that was low bidder was actually a demolition contractor and was capable of doing the job. I was assured by my staff that it was and as a matter of fact we awarded the contract; the firm moved in on the job and it is, I understand, nearly completed now very much ahead of schedule.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may: By checking with the Workmen’s Compensation Board one assumes that this company has done previous jobs of the same kind in Ontario. Otherwise the check would be meaningless; there would be no safety or accident record to monitor. Is that therefore the case?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand the firm has carried out demolition contracts in Ontario, in both Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, to mention two locations where I believe it has done work.

It was suggested, shall I say, by the wrecking contractors association that this firm was not in good standing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I had this thoroughly checked out and found that this was not the case; the firm has carried out work in Ontario and as far as Workmen’s Compensation Board is concerned it is in good standing. Of course, like any other contract, before we would pay the final payment on any contract we get a certificate from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, stating that the contractor is in good standing and that all fees and assessments have been paid.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to inquire if, when the circumstances are that the ministry does not have what we might call a track record of the firms which may be bidding for these jobs, there are additional requirements made with respect to insurance and bonding to protect the province satisfactorily where a new party is successful in obtaining contracts?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are. Of course, we have no regulations which say that a contractor which has not worked for the ministry before cannot bid on a job. In that way, we would be limiting competition and no new people would be able to enter the business.

In this particular contract there is no bond required as there is a substantial certified cheque. This is a ministry procedure with demolition contracts because they are usually of short duration and rather than ask for a normal five or 10 per cent bid bond or certified cheque with the tender, we ask for a much larger deposit and we hold that deposit until the contract is completed. In this case I believe the low bid was something in the neighbourhood of $158,000 or $160,000 and the certified cheque we have on deposit from the contractor is for $150,000, so I feel that adequately protects us.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition? The member for Scarborough West?

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S YEAR GRANT TO ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL

Mr. Lewis: Yes, could I ask a question first of the Minister of Culture and Recreation? Could the minister explain the irony to me of having the Ontario Arts Council consult with the Festival of Women in the Arts about how the money he has announced should be apportioned when the Festival of Women in the Arts -- this is the group at 21 McGill St. here in Toronto -- has been trying to get the minister to give it a grant this year for some considerable time without any response from the ministry or from those who might give grants from other ministries in an effort to have the $25,000 it seeks from the federal government matched provincially? Is the minister saying that that now will be done?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I may refer to the statement -- and certainly the statement was made in consultation with the group to which the member makes reference -- we are adding $150,000 to the $50,000 which the Arts Council already has. We asked the Arts Council to make some determinations with respect to the method of its disbursement and, in doing so, to consult with the group to which the member made reference.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the minister going to make a grant to the Festival of Women in the Arts and is he ever going to tell it about it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is not a separate grant; it is the grant to the Arts Council of Ontario and that council in turn will consult with the group to which the member makes reference as far as the disbursement is concerned. The money I am talking about is, in fact, part of that particular programme.

Mr. Lewis: The original $50,000, is that incorporated in that discussion as well?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes. It is a total of $200,000; the $50,000 which the Arts Council already has plus this $150,000 I announced today.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister prepared to indicate whether he is going to give a grant in excess of $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000? A more inconsequential grant to a large group cannot be imagined in International Women’s Year. Is the minister prepared to give some support to the request from the group with whom he is consulting?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made that point quite clear. We have an arm’s length arrangement with the Arts Council to make sure that good judgement is exercised, as far as I’m concerned. How could they begin to address themselves --

Mr. Lewis: It’s at arm’s length all right. Nobody is getting anything.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- to what I’ve asked them to do until they’ve had some assurance of the funds which they now have to date? They now have $200,000 as of today.

Mr. Lewis: They have been asking for months. They had $50,000.

Mr. Singer: They will have four times the inaction now.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for St. George have a supplementary?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Is the minister aware that in this particular programme planning is for the recognition of the whole festival in May? Why does he put so much more trust in women to be able to handle the situation and planning without funding than he does in men?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s a value-laden question. I don’t know that my statement would lend anyone to that particular conclusion at all.

Mr. Lewis: That is true. The minister trusts neither sex, in our experience.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES

Mr. Lewis: It’s kind of an interesting day. I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet -- there he is.

Mr. Breithaupt: In the wings.

Mr. Lewis: As he saunters towards his seat, since we’re paying such homage to International Women’s Year today, can he enumerate the ministries to which apparently, 16 women have been appointed to pursue affirmative action programmes?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge at the moment, I think we’ve done this in all of the operating ministries.

Mr. Lewis: In all of the operating ministries. That’s fine. That’s interesting.

May I ask the Minister of the Environment about the senior woman consultant whom he brought on to pursue an affirmative action programme in his ministry? Exactly what has been done, what changes have been made and what alterations in employment patterns and income have been achieved?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know exactly what the hon. member is talking about. Is he talking about the woman who is working up in our office?

Mr. Lewis: Does she work in the ministry office? I don’t know.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why did the member for Scarborough West ask him then?

Mr. Lewis: I was just told it’s in every operating ministry. That’s a good point. It was suggested to me why did I ask the Minister of the Environment. As his colleague indicated to me, apparently there has been a woman brought on to the Ministry of the Environment staff at the senior-most level to work out an affirmative action programme in his ministry. What has happened?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Who is she? What does she do?

Hon. W. Newman: We have a woman within our ministry who is working on that programme within the ministry.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, and what has happened?

Mr. Stokes: What does she do?

Hon. W. Newman: That’s a good question.

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister pull the flip tops? That’s a real good programme he has going.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, she’s a very capable person.

Mr. Lewis: Is that the full explanation?

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s an affirmative answer.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe I can ask the Minister of Labour -- why does he have his head down? -- since it’s the appropriate ministry in every sense, what is the woman involved in the affirmative action programme in his ministry? What exactly has been achieved? What plans are under way?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The woman who works in his office.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Somebody suggested it was Mrs. MacBeth, Mr. Speaker. But Ethel McLellan is in charge of our senior women’s service branch. She heads it all up, followed by Mrs. Marnie Clarke who heads up the Women’s Bureau. Then there’s a Crown employees group that the Chairman of Management Board is in charge of. What else does the member want? These women are active in trying to promote the cause of women, not only in the government but throughout the entire province.

Mr. Deans: In the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: They’re trying to bring about the equality that all of us feel should be theirs. If there is something specific that the member is asking about, it has gone over my head, Mr. Speaker. I’ll listen for it to come down to earth.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): It has gone over the minister’s head. It usually does when it concerns women.

Mr. Lewis: Mrs. Ethel McLellan and Marnie Clarke are quite separate from the subject at hand. There were apparently -- although no one can find anything out about it -- 16 women appointed to 16 operating ministries in government designed to pursue affirmative action programmes. Who are they? Which ministries? What are they doing in this ministry?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, they are, as I understand it, Crown employees. They are working through the management group that the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) heads up and are going to bring equality for women throughout the government services.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I just want to ask the Minister of Revenue, is he aware of such an appointment, and what has happened on the affirmative action front in his ministry?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, we have been giving every opportunity to women to seek advancement in the ministry and there have been a number of such appointments.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A very affirmative answer.

Mr. Lawlor: He only deals with money.

Mr. Lewis: Is there someone specifically appointed in his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, there is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Who is that?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I can get the name for the member.

Mr. Lewis: He can get the name for us? Thank you very much.

Mr. Martel: It is International Women’s Year.

Mr. Cassidy: Boy, consciousness-raising is needed over there.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe they should strike some more plaques.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I’m not going to pursue this absurdity, Mr. Speaker, but these appointments were as neat a piece of tokenism as has ever been made to divert public attention.

Interjection by an hon member.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, this statement is even worse. Even the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) paled as he heard the minister read it.

DAYCARE FACILITY AT QUEEN’S PARK

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development what has happened to the daycare facility in Queen’s Park, which was promised at least half a dozen times by everyone from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) to Ethel McLellan, whose name has been mentioned here this afternoon?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request the leader of the NDP to refer that question to the Chairman of Management Board.

Mr. Lewis: To the Chairman of Management Board? On day care?

Mr. Breithaupt: He needs some care.

Mr. Lewis: On night care perhaps, but that’s absurd.

All right, to the Chairman of Management Board: What has happened to the process of daycare arrangements, much of which was talked of and documented before the Council on the Status of Women, which would be established at Queen’s Park as a model to the province?

Mr. Singer: Has he taken it away from the provincial secretary?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, we have assessed the situation as it has developed down the line. We’ve inquired and we’ve endeavoured to find out what the use of the facility would be. I’ve searched for available space and I will be making an official statement about this in a few days.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, isn’t it true that the project has been killed, that there is no intention to proceed with a daycare setting in the Queen’s Park complex itself, and that that decision was made approximately 10 days ago?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is not really quite so.

Mr. Lewis: Not quite so?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As I say, the answer will be clear in a statement very shortly, with the backup material.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes. What does “not really quite so” mean this afternoon? That it was killed or it wasn’t killed? What does “not really quite so” mean?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It was not killed, but I will make a statement in regard to the policy, because I’m responsible for it.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It was just mutilated.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No, I think that will do.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

TASK FORCE ON LEGAL AID

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. In view of the fact that his ministry has had in its possession this report from Mr. Justice Osler for the better part of four months --

Hon. J. T. Clement (Attorney General): It might have gone by mail.

Mr. Singer: Yes, well it is dated Nov. 29, so one must presume that Mr. Justice Osler knew the date on which he was submitting it. It is fair to attribute that much intelligence to a judge of the Supreme Court. Could the minister tell us just when we are going to get some pronouncement from the ministry as to which of the recommendations are going to be adopted, the process by which it is being examined, why it has taken so long and why there was a denial a few weeks ago that the ministry was even aware of what was going on in this report?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the report itself was dated Nov. 29. As I understand it, it came into the ministry’s hands a few days following that date --

Mr. Singer: Three and a half months ago.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It was sent out immediately for printing, and we received it back during the short session here in late January or early February. I think the hon. member inquired about it at that time --

Mr. Singer: Yes, and the minister said he hadn’t seen it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh no, we said it was at the printer’s office, and I indicated to the hon. member that I was expecting receipt of it very quickly --

Mr. Singer: Yes, a second time when the question was asked.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We did receive it possibly some four weeks ago and then filed it in the House last Friday, I believe. Now, we are taking a look at it very carefully, because there are some recommendations in there that are going to have tremendous impact on the public, the legal profession and the courts in this province.

As a result of those studies, we will make certain recommendations to government as to whether all or any or none of the recommendations will be implemented. I say this seriously, and I think the hon. member would agree, that the impact of that study is going to be rather lengthy, and there are items that we are going to have difficulty in assessing, i.e., costs.

We have to take a look at the financial impact if all of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Osler were carried out. But I am not going to stand here and suggest that we are going to be ready to come forward to the House with it in a week or 10 days’ time, and I don’t think the hon. member expects it within that time frame. Realistically, I think it probably will be later in the summer before we can make recommendations to the government for implementation.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, would the minister not agree -- and without denigrating the importance of a careful study of this report -- that it gets a little foolish when a report sits in the ministry for four months and then the study begins?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I cannot indicate that the study is beginning now that we have the printed form. I just don’t --

Mr. Singer: It hasn’t begun yet?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, I’m just indicating the opposite. It may well have started some weeks ago following Nov. 29 -- I can give the hon. member the exact day they started studying it if it has that much importance to him --

Mr. Singer: I’d like some action on it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I’ll tell the hon. member he is talking to a party of action when he looks across at us.

Mr. Singer: Four months --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, would the hon. member indicate that Nov. 29 to today is four months?

Mr. Singer: December, January, February, March.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, that’s four months?

Mr. Singer: Three and a half months -- give me two weeks.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Then his mother must have carried him for 15 months.

Mr. Lewis: That makes a lot of assumptions too.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the evidence presented to the minister some weeks ago from the University of Toronto, linking the inhalation of asbestos to lung carcinoma, is he now prepared to accept the cases of ex-employees of Johns-Mansville who died of carcinoma of the lungs for compensation payments to their widows and specifically the one case which he was presented with at that time, namely Frank Sypher, which the minister said he would report back on?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for High Park sent me a note on Thursday, I believe, in connection with the Sypher case. I told him I didn’t have the information. I followed it up this morning. It is still under review, and I hope to have a report for the House on Monday or Tuesday in regard to it.

Each case will be regarded separately in terms of evidence, of course, so if any one case is reviewed favourably it doesn’t necessarily mean that all cases will be.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what is wrong with those people over there.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: In any event, this case is still under active review and I hope to have some word by Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary: In view of the overwhelming evidence linking inhalation of asbestos with carcinoma of the lung, should there not be a general ruling brought down for ex-asbestos workers who develop carcinoma of the lung covering them in terms of compensation?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, that’s a medical opinion upon which I am not prepared to pass judgement at this time, or make comment, but I hope that I will have some statement eventually on it from the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Reid: In view of the fact that the employees at Johns-Mansville have asked the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) to increase the safe level of the number of asbestos fibres in the air, does the minister have that under active consideration and will he accept their proposal to increase the safety margin?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, naturally we want to increase the safety margin as much as is reasonable and practicable, but the standards are set by the Minister of Health and that question would have to be directed to him.

Mr. Reid: Is the Minister of Labour not going to make any recommendations?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Any settlement which he sets, we will be glad to carry out.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has answers to some questions.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We are spending a lot of time on supplementaries, I might point out, today in general and we’re not getting back and forth to the other members who wish to ask the main questions. We’ll allow one supplementary on this one.

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary to the minister: Has he been asking for and collecting from the Workmen’s Compensation Board data on the asbestos problem as it relates to those workers in the construction industry who have been installing it over the years?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Workmen’s Compensation Board is trying to collect some information; I have asked for it. It is not that easy because people in that field do not necessarily stay in one job in one location and it is going to be difficult for the board to try to collect any worthwhile data, but I have asked it to give us what help it can.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health.

URANIUM COMPOUNDS IN DENTURES

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, during question period on Feb. 4, the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) asked if I would inquire whether uranium compounds are in use in dentures in Ontario. In February, 1974, there was a report in the journal of the British Dental Association that uranium oxide was being incorporated in porcelain used to make artificial teeth by some manufacturers. The element was to cause fluorescence -- I suppose in the dark -- and thus improve the aesthetic quality of the teeth. The amount of uranium oxide was considered by the British researchers to present a potential hazard to dental laboratory workers but not to dental patients.

The faculty of the University of Toronto has been consulted and has stated that as members of the international dental standards committee they’re taking steps to bar the importation into Canada of artificial teeth containing uranium oxide. Manufacturers of artificial teeth in Canada and the USA use other ingredients to achieve the desired aesthetic results.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): A supplementary on this: When the minister mentions that the British researchers thought the hazard might be to the workers making the teeth, is he not confusing that with the National Radiation Protective Board which says the exposure hazard was to the wearers?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am repeating the information I was given. I find it very difficult to believe that it could hurt the workers if it didn’t hurt the wearers because I would think one is in contact with it a lot more as a wearer than as a worker. It just doesn’t seem to strike a reasonable tone to me and yet that is the information we were given from those researchers. However, in either case, I don’t think one should allow that risk to exist in Canada.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM

Hon. Mr. Miller: The member for Sandwich-Riverside, in the question period of Feb. 10, asked if x-rays and other precautions and concerns were being shown to the workers at the Holmes Insulation plant at Point Edwards. This company has been sold; it has discontinued the use of asbestos and moved to a new location.

Employees of the company began receiving chest x-rays in 1956 and re-examinations were conducted at intervals of 18 months. In addition, an x-ray unit was available at intervals of 4½ months for the purpose of x-raying new employees and any others who, in the opinion of our staff, required repeat examinations.

Tests of lung function were begun on a routine basis in conjunction with the chest x-ray programme in 1971.

Former employees who are still employed by the present company will continue under surveillance.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

MURRAY TRAVEL SERVICE LTD.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In connection with the bankruptcy of Murray Travel Service Ltd., can he tell me what investigations the ministry is undertaking, especially in the context of those people who have deposited funds for the purposes of their March vacations?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, it hasn’t come to my personal attention but I can assure the member that we will be looking into it now that he has drawn it to my attention. I should point out, of course, that the Travel Industry Act has not yet been proclaimed and therefore there is no protection under that particular legislation. However, we will be looking into it now that it has been brought to my attention with every hope that perhaps those people who have made deposits can be protected in some way or another.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HOME PROJECT IN HAMILTON

Mr. Deans: A question of the Minister of Housing. Did the Minister of Housing make representation to the federal minister of housing with regard to the evaluation placed on the land under the most recently completed HOME project in the Hamilton area? Did he receive any answer with regard to their eligibility to receive the $500 grant?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I did bring to the hon. minister’s attention the fact to which the member refers, that the upper limit is not high enough in regard to Hamilton, and possibly in other places too. We haven’t received a definitive answer from the minister, but hopefully we will, whereby the levels will be increased sufficiently in more areas than one, as I have concern, as he has, as to the relative amount of the upper limit at this time. We have not confirmed with the minister as to the $500 grants. The legislation, as I understand it, is proceeding.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question with regard to the land values: Will the minister review the method of assessing the values of the land with an eye to attempting to provide land at something less than the $150 to $160 per month rental levels that have been established in the Saltfleet development? Renting land at $150 to $160 per month is not much of a bargain.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well Mr. Speaker, I think that’s a judgement which only the member himself can make. I feel the purchasing of land in the past has been a very good investment by the Ontario government through the Ontario Housing Corp.

Mr. Deacon: At the expense of the home buyer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If we did not have the land, purchased at a relatively low price at the time, we wouldn’t be able even now to offer that rent. The rents could be a lot more.

Mr. Deans: But it’s $160 a month for land alone.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: With the prices of today, those leases pertaining to the HOME lots are in my opinion very low compared to what they might be. Therefore I say that the particular rent to which the hon. member is referring is quite legitimate.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

NURSING HOME BEDS

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health: How does the minister justify his allotment, I think it’s about 3.2 nursing home beds per 1,000 population, especially in an area such as the Waterloo region where there are waiting lists at every nursing home within the region?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the provincial guideline, I think, is 3.5 beds per 1,000. That was an estimation of need, not a proven indicator, because of course until it became an insured benefit no one could be certain what the real needs would be.

We have been increasing the number of nursing home beds pretty fast. We have 25,000 right now. We have about 3,000 under construction right now. Apart from that there are between 10,000 and 12,000 beds in homes for the aged in Ontario where people are receiving extended-care OHIP benefits. So in fact we have almost as many nursing home beds available for patients in Ontario today as there are active treatment beds.

Now in any given area we try to weight the number of beds against the age of the population, because after all the primary people using them are those over 65. This isn’t always an indication because in some parts of rural Ontario people tend to stay at home, tend to stay active and therefore underutilize them; so in the final analysis we try to tailor the licences to the waiting lists. It is not always an easy thing to do and I can assure members that the demand will continue to outstrip the supply, because people are leaving homes and coming into the institutions once the facilities are made available.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

FOG IN SUDBURY AREA

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Is there, or does his staff consider there is, a vapour plume which escapes from the cooling towers near the iron ore recovery plant in Sudbury which in fact is leading to the fog which has once again come to the fore at Inco?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I asked specifically last week for a complete and comprehensive up-to-date report on that as of last week so I could have a good look at it.

Mr. Martel: Well could I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Was there a ministerial order considered, after three of the minister’s investigator’s went in, to curtail some of the work involving the cooling tower?

Hon. W. Newman: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but we are looking at it. It’s a very strange phenomenon, it’s very hard to work out. I have asked for a complete, up-to-date report on it; and I have asked our people to go in and look at it again as of last week.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

STUDY OF METRO TORONTO

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board in regard to the Robarts inquiry: Apparently the Robarts inquiry is taking on 13 consultants; can the minister tell us what the budget is for the Robarts inquiry? Is it an open-ended thing or is it going to spend great sums of money like the committees on post-secondary education and the cost of education?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, there was an initial allocation -- I don’t have the figure in mind right at the moment -- in regard to the responsibilities that have been assigned to him. But I believe we will give him the staff he requires to do the job that’s been placed in his hands.

Mr. Reid: May I ask a short supplementary: Does the government have any control over these kind of inquiries, regardless of who is running them? And would the minister care to make comment on a Metro Toronto official’s comment that the information is already there and these studies are largely redundant?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don’t accept that. I just simply say to the member that, yes, we do have some control, and we have a continuing reporting and monitoring system.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, to the acting Solicitor General: Inasmuch as the federal government has now turned down all requests from this government to take action against any problems on the waterfront involving the SIU, what if anything is the Ontario government going to do specifically about the hiring hall, and about the “do not ship” list, and the violence in the SIU halls?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Ontario government with reference to the SIU matters, if I may describe it in that way, still remains the same.

My predecessor communicated with the federal government, pointing out some of the problems, some of the crossing of provincial boundaries, the fact that it was an international type of situation, and that the federal Department of Labour would be the correct vehicle with which to undertake such an inquiry. And, for reasons which I am not privy to, those requests have been rejected.

I believe the Solicitor General’s ministry in this province has already undertaken the prosecution of some five individuals for specific instances, I think, of types of assaults. We will continue to prosecute any crimes which are brought to our attention, assuming that the evidence warrants it, if confined within the Province of Ontario; because we simply cannot extend beyond the provincial boundaries to charge anyone. And I’m not suggesting that the member has suggested that.

We can see that it’s more than province-wide in scope, and therefore we feel we have absolutely no jurisdiction. The head office of the union, as I understand it, is in Montreal; and there are records which should, perhaps, be made available to law enforcement agencies. There is no way that we as a province can obtain them.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We are well over our oral question period.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

SAFETY COMMITTEES ACT, 1975

Mr. Haggerty moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the Establishment of Safety Committees.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to allow labour to have some input in safety matters in industry throughout the Province of Ontario, and I hope that it will reduce the number of accidents in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Before the order of the day I will recognize the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

ST. PATRICK’S DAY

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, as the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, and this being March 17, and before any other attempt to encroach on my responsibilities in representing the Irish in this Legislature --

Mr. MacDonald: What are his credentials?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I’m sure that they would all join with me in wishing for all of those of Irish ancestry in this province the very best of everything. On a more serious note, I am sure that they would also join me in a fervent prayer that long before the next March 17 all those in Ireland will find a lasting peace.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege in relation to an article that appeared in Saturday’s Toronto Star, entitled “The $15-million Mouth,” dealing with the information and public relations services of the government. Although it is a minor thing, I would like to just state that in the article I am quoted as saying that the government, in reply to my question on the order paper, deliberately misled the Legislature. I think that was possibly a misunderstanding of what I said, sir. In fact, I did not say that they deliberately misled the Legislature. I think the way the answer came out is just another example of their sloppiness and inefficiency.

If I may speak on a supplementary point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this as a question previously, but as a question of privilege, whether in placing a question on the order paper, a member is entitled, if the question is answered, to have the question answered in the way the question was put and if he is not entitled to complete an accurate information in regard to that question?

Mr. Speaker: It has always been my understanding that the minister, or whoever it is in the ministry, answers the question in his or her own way, and the content has nothing to do with Mr. Speaker, I am afraid.

Mr. Breithaupt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I recall that at the time of the debate entered into with respect to the proposals on redistribution, it was my understanding that within 30 days of the end of that debate the report would be returned to the House, presumably to be acted upon eventually in the form of an Act to amend the Representation Act or a new Representation Act.

I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, since those 30 days expired while the House was not sitting, whether you can advise us if this report has been received by you, or if it is expected, so that members can know the likely result and when we would be able to see the final submission made by the committee appointed on redistribution.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker can answer that. He was provided with a copy of the report on either Thursday or Friday of last week and he forwarded it on to the appropriate ministry.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I might rise on a point of order, wouldn’t Mr. Speaker think that if he has been provided with a copy of the report, it should then be forwarded to the members of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Well, I was instructed to send it to the minister who I think was going to pilot it through the House, and I understand that was --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who was in a position to instruct you, sir?

Mr. Speaker: Well, I received the report from the commission in the person of the Clerk of the House.

Mr. Bullbrook: On the point of order, do you not receive that report as our Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite true, but it has to be put in a motion; somebody has to do it. I receive it and pass it on for action to be taken.

Mr. Bullbrook: I realize that. Did you never give consideration, sir, that it might be distributed to the various members of this Legislature, or at least the leaders of the party or the House leaders of the party?

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): In the fullness of time. There’s lots of time.

Mr. Deans: May I make a comment on this? Perhaps it will help clear it up; doubtless it won’t --

Mr. Bullbrook: No, but I --

Mr. Deans: It is the same point.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say this on a point of order, if I may: Nobody is for one moment not recognizing the government’s right and responsibility to pass laws. The government might accept the report or not accept the report, and then we will debate the bill. I am interested in the report, and so is my leader.

Mr. Deans: I agree. May I ask whether in fact the report took the form of a bill?

Mr. Speaker: I can’t answer that accurately. I glanced through it. There was a description of the --

Mr. Stokes: Did it look like a bill or a report?

Mr. Speaker: It looked like a bill. Everything looks like a bill. Anyway, the machinery is in motion --

Mr. Bullbrook: No, that is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker: I will check and see what else should be done. It was my understanding that it was going to be presented to the House in a formal fashion by the ministry from here on.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am repeating the point, but you have not really responded to the point. The report was made to you as Speaker of the House, not as a servant of the government.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: Therefore, are you going to present that report to the House so that we can take a look at it, irrespective of what the government does? Then we will take a look at it, when the government does.

Mr. Speaker: I will check on the proper procedure and let you have a report tomorrow.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Might I further, on a point of order, suggest to you with respect, that there really isn’t anyone in the position to instruct you in these matters. It must be a matter of your judgement as our representative, and we have every confidence that you will make the right judgement.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll report further tomorrow.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I spoke extensively on Friday last on matters of deep concern to my colleagues and myself in the Liberal Party; and I would say also of deep concern to the people in the Province of Ontario, without regard to their political affiliation. They have expressed a feeling that any expectations associated with the Speech from the Throne have not been fulfilled and that there has been no programme of leadership brought forward by the Lieutenant Governor in speaking on behalf of the government.

I see that the attendance in the House today is very much as it was on Friday. I recognize, sir, that in this House we all have a right to speak, but I suppose we do not have a responsibility to listen. I do, however, feel somewhat affronted by the fact that when I did speak on Friday I was responded to by five cabinet ministers, or at least people in their employ. As nearly as I can tell, not one of the five cabinet ministers who responded was in fact in the Legislature. As a matter of fact the only one who was here was the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) and he squirmed around so long that he finally had to leave for reasons unknown.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is an indication that the government is so top-heavy with their public relations writers and their so-called research experts that they simply let them do their work for them. They sit under the gallery, or they listen to the speaker somewhere and then they turn out some sort of a press release which is designed, I suppose, to rebut the criticism which is put forward in the Legislature in a democratic, and I hope a healthy way. It may be critical but at least it’s responsible. The thing that concerns me is the irresponsibility of the government, which absents itself and then through these people, able though they well may be in their own right, responds to the comments, criticisms and alternative suggestions that come from the opposition.

It’s so interesting that four of these press releases came out immediately. On reading them I found them completely fatuous, particularly the one from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), who has scrammed out of here already. It’s interesting to note that the government spends $15 million a year on public relations experts and that the Minister of Agriculture and Food alone, the man with his feet firmly planted in the soil, would spend $1.3 million in order to put his message across to the people of the province. It seems totally and thoroughly irresponsible that they would vacate their democratic responsibilities in such a thoroughly reprehensible way.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Does the minister spend more?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: On a point of privilege, I ought to say.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Privilege?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Privilege?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like the hon. Leader of the Opposition to know that the statement that was released by myself was entirely with my concurrence. I prepared it because I felt that the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition were totally irresponsible --

Mr. Bullbrook: That is not a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- were totally non-factual, and certainly were not ones that I would expect to come from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Let the minister state his point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t hear all that was said, but I believe the hon. minister was correcting a statement which he felt was wrong; which he has done.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): It was his own statement.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t think he really corrected it, Mr. Speaker. He said the statement had his concurrence and that’s what I said. Somebody wrote it and said: “What do you think of this, boss? And he said: “I don’t think it’s harsh enough. I want you to tighten this up a little bit. Take a few shots at Nixon and we’ll release it.”

I don’t even think they’re getting their money’s worth. When one reads those statements they are completely fatuous, off the point, irrelevant; and so defensive as to be almost amusing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They don’t get their money’s worth unless they earn it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a matter of fact I’m told by my extensive acquaintanceship in the press gallery -- they are all here listening to me as members can see -- that the representative from the Ministry of the Environment phoned and said: “Listen, we are going to send you a rebuttal so don’t go away and keep your pencils sharp”; but it never arrived. So it seems to me that the Minister of the Environment, who once again has had to absent himself --

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Well that should tell the member something.

An hon. member: He’s writing his rebuttal.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- ought to look into his public relations staff because they are really not defending him as effectively, perhaps, as one would think the $15 million spent in this regard would justify.

I really do not feel personally affronted that those people are not here; I know they are busy. The Premier (Mr. Davis) had a date with Judy LaMarsh, and who can turn that down? I know how persuasive she can be, and he is a busy man. I would think all of those ministers are very busy. I don’t know what they do. They must have a variety of responsibilities.

Mr. Turner: The member would never know.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But when we see the mess this province is in, we wonder just what they do other than contribute to the downfall of the Conservative Party, because that’s what’s happening.

Mr. Turner: That would be beyond the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: When I completed my remarks on Friday, or when the hour of adjournment came around, I had been listing, Mr. Speaker, for your edification sir, and I think you were as interested as anyone was, the failures of the government, particularly in the four years that the present Premier has held his high office and heavy responsibility. I listed for you, sir, the many areas of provincial responsibility and endeavour where our position, let’s say as the cornerstone of the Canadian Confederation, has not been maintained. I think perhaps I would just pick up my comments by pointing out to you, sir, what has happened financially, fiscally, in the Province of Ontario since 1969-1970 and 1970-1971 when the present regime took responsibility.

The total expenditure in 1969-1970 was $4.3 billion; the expenditure this year is $8.8 billion, up 108 per cent. I cannot help but recall to your mind, sir, and perhaps as a candidate in the last election you took some enjoyment from this, that during the election campaign of 1971 the Premier of the day, through the then Treasurer Mr. MacNaughton, utilized the undoubted abilities of the experts in the treasury to so-called cost the election programme of the Liberal Party and of the NDP. They did this in a way I feel led the government to prostitute the responsibilities of those people.

For example, in bringing the cost forward they said if the NDP were elected it would mean an increase, I think it was of $3.7 billion. The Liberals, and I suppose they thought they were treating us kindly, they said would mean $3 billion extra.

Now there was no thought in their mind, when they saw the indications that we were concerned in taking over a larger share of the cost of education, that this would obviously mean a reduction of the costs to the local property owners and therefore no new cost whatsoever. When we talked about the premium costs for our medical insurance at the time, obviously the people do not get Medicare free, either when it is paid for under taxes or when it is paid for by the premium system. It was a thoroughly reprehensible order and directive that went from the Premier, or the Treasurer of the day, ordering such a review.

Now I want to say something more about that, because even in the fashion, irresponsible as it was, to conjure up this kind of fiscal bogeyman to frighten people into staying with the old tried and true Tories, the worst they could say about the Liberals was that the election of the Liberals would mean an increase in the cost of government of about $3 billion.

I simply ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the figures? The budget that year, in 1969-1970 was $4.2 billion; this year it is $8.8 billion. Even from 1970-1971 the increase is $3.68 billion, which would say that in fact they have far surpassed their worst frightened comments that were supposed to be directed at us.

I think you should also recall, Mr. Speaker, that in that last year of John Robarts’ responsibility we had a surplus of $150 million. Anybody who talks about a surplus now is considered to be a hopeless reactionary.

Even that great Conservative -- and an unreconstructed Conservative -- who is presently the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) is always chortling about the possibility of anybody suggesting that we don’t spend any more than we earn. This year, under his direction and his predecessor’s direction, we have a budgetary deficit of $792 million and something called a net cash requirement of $1.16 billion over our revenues. That is what has happened in the four years of the stewardship of the Premier and his succession of Treasurers as they go through that particular mill. The net debt -- and this is the thing that concerns me --

Mr. Singer: There goes the Treasurer.

Mr. Bullbrook: We’ve just lost him.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Don’t run away.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In 1969-1970, it was $1.4 billion and now it is $3.7 billion. After the Treasurer gets through with it next month one can be sure we will be going behind by another billion and a half dollars.

I think probably one of the best ways to look at it, however, is our interest commitment, which in 1969-1970 was $305 million -- a substantial cost of credit no doubt -- and now it is $682 million, as I said on Friday, without taking into account our fantastic commitments and guarantees on behalf of Ontario Hydro.

I also want to reiterate the seriously misleading concepts which have been brought forward by the government, even in the Speech from the Throne, when it says it has reduced our public borrowing. In so doing, it has added to our debt $680 million owing in premiums to the Canada Pension Plan; $287 million owing to the teachers’ superannuation fund, which it put into the consolidated revenue fund simply by an order in council; $138 million of the municipal employees retirement fund; for a total cash requirement beyond our revenues of $1,147,000,000. For the government to say it is reducing our debt is simply cooking the books in the worst William Aberhart-Wacky Bennett tradition.

It is thoroughly dishonest, thoroughly misleading and certainly will not be accepted by the electorate of the day. I was hoping the Premier would see fit to attend this afternoon, even briefly; he may be in yet, who knows? One thing I wanted to bring to his attention is that obviously the people are not accepting the statements from him and the government of the day on the excellence of their record of achievement. All one has to do is read the Jan. 22 issue of the Daily Times of Brampton serving Peel region. The heading is “Times Election Poll Shows Davis May Have a Fight on His Hands.” It says:

“When the undecided vote is not included the percentage of committed voters looks like this: Liberals 45.8 per cent; Conservative 30.6 per cent; NDP 22.6 per cent.”

Mr. Singer: What riding is that in?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is in the riding which will be called Brampton.

Mr. Singer: Brampton? Really?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Brampton. It goes on to say, and I quote from the newspaper in the Premier’s hometown:

“If the poll is indeed an indication of how the election will go, it shows Premier Davis is in deep personal trouble with the voters.”

I would say that while he may sit back with that urbane smile on his face and say the polls don’t mean anything, I would predict -- I have been talking to the Liberals in the area and there are a lot of them, I’m telling the House. They are very democratically organized and if they nominate --

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): All five of them.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): All seven or eight.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- the person I think they will nominate, the Premier will have a chance to apply for a job as a transit consultant in Chicago or Montreal or some place like that. I am predicting that he is going to be personally defeated.

Mr. G. Nixon: The member is not elected yet.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The people out there don’t like regional government. We have Hazel MacKellion running -- not in that riding but standing for a nomination nearby.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The Liberals are welcome to her.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’m telling members that in the region of Peel it’s going to be a clean sweep for the Liberals. I am making that prediction.

Mr. G. Nixon: Hurrah.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to complete my remarks, that are directed toward the serious problem of --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Those members hang around in here in case the Premier comes in and says: “My, aren’t those loyal people? They should get a job of some sort.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are the only ones in the Tory party that are not getting any perks.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I just wanted to say something further about housing. The Minister of Housing is extremely sensitive. He will be coming out with some further rebuttals as soon as he talks to his hired public relations people who can assist him.

I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that we are in this position where we desperately need housing. It is in serious short supply in every community that I am aware of. We happen, in this province, to have the raw materials in abundance. Those people in the lumbering industry are suffering a somewhat serious decline in their business because nobody wants to buy this material. We have the building material here in great supply and it is one of our major exports. We have the tremendous need and God knows we have land. We do not want to use the class 1 and 2 agricultural lands, but we have land for development; and, Mr. Speaker, we have a serious level of unemployment even in the construction industry itself.

Why couldn’t we bring all of these things together; that is, the material, the demand, the workers, the undoubted strength, economically and fiscally, of this province and the government of Canada to meet the needs which are so apparent?

Instead of that, we find that our housing starts are down 22 per cent to something of a rate of 85,000 a year. Before we even had a Ministry of Housing it was 110,000 a year.

This must concern the minister as much as it does me. In this province we need serviced land, we need affordable housing and we need jobs. Surely it is not beyond the capacity of this government to put these elements together and devise a practical, workable plan to build houses that are within the financial means of Ontario citizens.

We are tired, and the people of Ontario are tired, of the succession of schemes touted by this government with great fanfare -- I must say the present minister is not as good at headlines as many of his predecessors but he tries -- and within a few months these schemes prove themselves ineffectual. None of the programmes -- not the HOME programme, not OHAP, not the integrated housing scheme -- addresses the fundamental problem of municipal financial inequities. Local councils throughout the province are erecting barriers to moderate-cost housing because the servicing costs would further increase property taxes. Just last week the Newmarket Era editorialized, and I quote:

“York regional council has a number of things to weigh before deciding whether to throw its support behind Ontario’s crash housing programme. First, it must establish the financial implications. If, as council has been told, deficits created by this type of housing will be long-term burdens on York’s taxpayers, Mr. Irvine will have to improve his offer of a three-year offsetting grant.”

There is no point in the Minister of Housing continually berating the local municipalities. They are victims of the horse-and-buggy tax system that forces assessment planning upon them and that this government has refused to change. Nor is there much point in his complaints that federal funding is insufficient, when his own budget has been underspent by $103 million in the past two years.

The other thing that concerns me, of course, is that his main initiatives are only applicable in regional government areas. In my own area, when the mayor of a town phones up and says what about a housing programme, they say, well it doesn’t apply to you because you’re not regionalized.

It certainly concerns me. We will have a chance for the minister to extend his OHAP moneys, let’s say to the community of Paris, Ont., where it has specifically been turned down after the mayor requested it. The minister could find out about that if he chooses to.

I want to refer, Mr. Speaker, to the serious situation that has arisen regarding the Ontario Housing Corp. We are deeply concerned with the unbusinesslike methods of this corporation, the acute slowdown in its public housing programme, the rent supplement programme, the poor performance in senior citizens’ housing and its unspeakably inept land dealings, and I refer to the South Milton assembly, which was debated extensively earlier this year, where it was indicated that $4 million of unearned profits were made by landholders holding land fox about six months.

Mr. Singer: And more will be made.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have seen, Mr. Speaker, that a number of employees in the top levels of Ontario Housing Corp. have been under indictment for accepting bribes. Some have been found guilty and some have pleaded guilty. We have attempted time and again to have the minutes of Ontario Housing Corp. made public documents so we can find out how they do business; and in each case we have been stopped.

I believe the function of Ontario Housing Corp. is seriously impaired by the lack of confidence it has across the Province of Ontario in the methods of business administration that it is using.

I feel that Ontario Housing Corp. has outlived its usefulness, particularly since we now have a Ministry of Housing which was established with the concept of bringing public policy to bear on the problems we face in this particular field. I believe that Ontario Housing Corp. functions should be assumed by the Ministry of Housing to ensure full accountability to this Legislature. The housing function is too critical to the well-being of the people of this province to be left to the discretion of a board of directors that in fact acts as a buffer between the corporation and this House.

No, Mr. Speaker, I gather from certain discussions among the whips that we are not under tremendous pressure to proceed with this debate this afternoon. I am not sure just what the disposition is, but with your permission, sir, I have two other subjects I want to deal with briefly.

The one has to do with northern development, which was not referred to in the Speech from the Throne at all. I want to say to you, sir, that we in the Liberal Party believe the north has suffered economically for too long. They have an alienation that has been the result of the inadequate policies of this government. We have seen that certain elements in the north are even talking about secession; a concept which certainly I and my colleagues in this party do not support in any particular. But we do believe that specific steps must be taken in order to meet the needs of the north.

We believe, for example, that the board of the Northern Ontario Development Corp. must include all of the elected members of the north without regard to their political allegiance. We believe that old-fashioned political patronage has held up the development of the north for far too long and that this, in fact, would make a forum where that could at least he put out of the picture once and for all so that the northern elected members will have more to say about the utilization of funds for northern programmes.

We also believe in this party that there must be a programme accepted in this House that is going to make the cost of living equal between these two parts of the province. We believe that a government that can equalize the cost of beer can also equalize the costs of the other necessities of life in the north. We think we should implement a northern tax credit so that people earning their income in the north are going to have at least this medium whereby the cost of living can be equalized. We believe gasoline tax in the north should be reduced, since anyone who has travelled there knows the tremendous demands, not only in time and inconvenience, but in cost for that sort of transportation.

We have discussed previously the requirement for additional highways. I believe that the present Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) has made a strong commitment as well, and we will certainly be looking for some evidence of that, particularly in this election year. We hope that they do something more than get their surveyors out, even in the Thunder Bay area. I am glad to see the member for the area is here today to nod and give his assurances that we are going to have something more than surveys.

I do, however, want to speak about one last topic, and very briefly, but perhaps it’s the most important of all, Mr. Speaker. It is the concern that people are feeling with the release of the report on the Toronto Board of Education that the drop-out rate in this city is approaching 25 per cent this year. Unfortunately, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) who is in his seat now, was not here in question period when it was explained by his policy minister that those figures were inflated because some of the people dropping out from grade 12 continue their education by going on into community college. I felt that was a very weak and insufficient response to a situation which must be extremely significant for the Minister of Education, as it is for everyone else.

We should know, surely, whether the dropout rate indicated by this statistical review in Toronto is the same in the other communities across the province. The minister shakes his head. His policy minister said this was not known, since no review had been done. But I do know that we must have a statement in this regard, because I cannot understand why, in the city of Toronto, there would be a dropout rate approaching 25 per cent, if it is not as high, as seriously high, in the other communities.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Can I just say this, Mr. Speaker? I would just tell my friend that we have had a provincial task force on school dropouts at work on this problem. They are surveying in depth 38 boards in the province. Their report will be ready towards the end of this year. They’re doing a very detailed survey, including personal interviews of people who have dropped out. I think this report will be very helpful and meaningful, but until it’s ready I can’t give him any more details.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): When was the task force appointed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh that task force has been in operation for about six or eight months now.

Mr. Singer: Nobody tells the policy minister?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly she would know, but we have many things ongoing.

Mr. Ruston: The government is ongoing. It is going right out!

Hon. Mr. Wells: As my friends are aware, the problem of dropouts is not a new one. The phenomenon became apparent about a year ago. I think my friend has mentioned it in his speeches before. This task force is doing this job in a very thorough way, and doing it in depth with 38 boards in this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes; well what we want really, and I would think it would be on an emergency basis, is somebody to review the attendance statistics across the province next week and to tell us at the end of next week what the dropout rate is across the province. In other words, how many people were registered in September and how many people were registered at the end of February?

After all, the ministry has got one of the largest and most expensive computers working here. Why don’t they push the button and find out about that?

I suspect that the present problem of dropouts is far different than it was a year ago when it concerned us. We’ve been talking about dropouts in this House since I was first elected back in 1962 and 1963, when the minister’s predecessor, the present Premier, was concerned about it. We were talking then about giving alternative types of education, and much has been done in that regard. But right now, I would suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that this enormous, shockingly high rate of dropping out is caused by the loss of confidence in the students themselves that there is sufficient quality in their education to warrant their continuing that education. I am concerned with that very matter.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is the one thing that doesn’t show.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And there are those people in the community, and I hope the minister talks to some of them, who are equally --

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier is responsible.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Has the Leader of the Opposition read the report?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What report?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The one thing it doesn’t show is a shocking lack of confidence in the school system.

Mrs. Campbell: It should!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why are they dropping out?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let the member read the report and he will see.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Minister of Education is going to express some personal concern about this, because in my view the loss of confidence in the quality of education is quite a new thing. I believe that it first came forward about a year ago, and that it has been escalating and snowballing around this province until even the minister is talking about the teachers getting back to the three Rs. You know it really is offensive that he would say that, since it is under the direction of his own ministry and his predecessors that they got away from it in the first place.

Some hon. members: Right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What is offensive about that?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was the inadequate leadership that came from his ministry that has resulted in the fact that the students in the secondary school system of this province are reduced, let’s say in the study of French language, to about 34 per cent. I’m sure he has a report on that, but so far nothing has been done. We’ve read about the excellent report by Bob Gillam and the others. The minister takes a lot of credit for appointing those people, but he put that whole problem on ice for two years; now he’s got the report and he’s doing nothing about it.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this 25 per cent dropout rate does not reflect the old perceptions of the problems of dropouts. It means that the young people are losing confidence in the school system, just as their parents are, and they are simply abandoning it. They are doing alternative things which many people think may be just as effective as continuing in a school system that doesn’t give them a core of subjects. It does not provide them with a basis of education that is going to enable them to go into the work force or even come out into the community as anything resembling an educated person. They go on to university; they have to take remedial English; they have to take remedial arithmetic; they have to take remedial basic science. Even the minister himself has said that he would not require English as a requirement for people going to further education.

The students have lost confidence in the system. Look at the teachers. Look what has happened to the teachers in this province over the last two years. The present Premier came out of the Ministry of Education after almost a decade in that responsibility with a tremendous reservoir of respect and goodwill from the teachers, the trustees and the people concerned with education. Somehow he and the Minister of Education have lost that reservoir. There is no goodwill remaining. There is nothing but that loss of confidence on the part of the students and the parents, and the deep concern of the teachers that has led to the kind of confrontations that the minister seems to revel in.

The trustees themselves feel powerless to make decisions. They are frustrated. They cannot make decisions that must be their responsibility democratically. One minister in the government says the ceilings are going to be phased out. The Minister of Education reverses that and says no, sir, they are going to be made more potent, if anything. We really don’t know what the minister is doing, but our observation is that he has also lost the confidence of the trustees. There are those who are prepared to say, “To hell with the ceilings, we are going forward to fulfil our responsibilities and provide quality of education.” The minister doesn’t know whether he is going to penalize them; he doesn’t know whether he is going to punish them. All he says is that he will make a statement in due course.

The universities are very concerned with their level of financing as well. Some of them are talking about going into the public market and borrowing.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): He sounds like Chretien and what he is going to do with the federal civil servants.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would just like to know if the member has read that dropout report.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, Mr. Speaker, it surely is the least thing --

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): He hasn’t read it.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The minister has terrible problems in his system regardless of the dropout report.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Listen, what are we paying him for?

Mr. Ruston: Keep a little order here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It certainly seems to me that the government of the day, rather than announcing without consultation and without notice that the funds for post-secondary education are going to be as seriously inadequate as they are, should have entered into five-year financing and planning in this regard. People then at the university level with responsibilities might kick about it and complain about it, but at least they would have ample time to make the kinds of decisions that are necessary.

The taxpayers are not satisfied. The Premier tries to make much of his ceiling policy, but you know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, that this has had nothing to do with controlling the cost of education. The Ministry of Education has gone forward by $50 million in building its own empire without hiring any teachers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Where is that $50 million?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That $50 million is being spent in the ministry’s so-called regionalizing programme where it hires facilities in all these communities. It hires people at elevated salary levels and puts them in those offices as some sort of local panjamdrums in charge of education. They can’t make any decisions. All they do is make nice speeches at the opening of schools and say, “On behalf of the minister, who is very concerned about this community, we are glad to give you this school,” or some other clap-trap.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Leader of the Opposition is always talking about decentralizing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is the one who is wasting money in education. It is not the school boards at the local level. He is the one who is going into this regionalizing type of procedure which he tries to pass off as putting decisions back into the community. If he wants the decisions in the community, give the decision-making powers to the local school boards.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Is the Leader of the Opposition saying we should close those regional offices?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that this 25 per cent dropout statistic, this shocking statistic, simply brings into focus the fact that the students have no confidence in the system, that teachers are thoroughly disillusioned and are in a position of confrontation with the minister and any representative of the government; that trustees are frustrated and have no power; and that parents are heart sick about the situation. Even the minister must talk to a lot of his friends who are saying, “I wish I could afford to put them into private education.” Look at any of the private schools and there is a waiting list there.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Lewis: That is exactly right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is not right.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): It is so. The minister’s own officials are saying that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The universities have not been fairly treated. We do not object to any programme that is designed to control costs, certainly not after the last decade when there was absolutely no limit on any expenditure in education, none whatsoever, during the days when the present Premier was riding high as Minister of Education. Now, things are different. But, surely, if we’re going to have a programme of reducing costs, it’s got to be in such a way that those people in the universities and community colleges can plan for it in advance and not have to undertake the chaotic procedure they’re subject to at the present time.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that education is the most important responsibility this House bears under the constitution of Canada. While we can be directly critical of many of the ineffective policies of the government, and we can be personally critical of the bad administrative practices of many government ministers, but the failure in education, in my view, is the most serious failure of the Premier himself. He was the master builder of the system. He built into it the expectations and the costs which now apparently cannot be supported.

Any efforts made by this government to restore confidence in the situation that I have described will certainly be supported by us. We feel that the government has seriously misled the people of the province. We feel that it cannot be corrected without a change in government, and that’s what we’re here to accomplish.

I’m glad to see that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White) is back in his place --

Mr. Singer: The one in charge of elections.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- because it is incomprehensible, as far as we’re concerned, that the government would choose to bring down a Speech from the Throne such as the one we heard last Tuesday. But it all comes into focus when the suggestion is made that perhaps the former Treasurer wrote the speech. It may be that he’s the person who has been given the responsibility by the Premier as his chief minister in charge of re-election of the Conservative Party. Maybe he said: “Okay, John, you write the speech. You tell us how to do it because I’m very busy with other things.” He’s got to go on “This Country in the Morning” and things like that.

I sometimes think the former Treasurer must have come here on an unidentified flying object. I don’t know where he came from, but I suspect it was Saturn. I feel that somehow or other he has been programmed to sort of make the noises that a sensitive human person makes but somehow his judgement has been flawed and his programme is somehow inept.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Leader of the Opposition is unreal.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If there is anything on the organizational side that is going to contribute to the downfall of the Tory party, it is the Minister without Portfolio who is being paid $7,500, in addition to his ordinary indemnity by the taxpayers, to reassure the election of this party.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Less five per cent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would say that the whole idea that the former Treasurer was in charge of that Speech from the Throne rings true, because there is something about that speech that sounds like him. All of the platitudes are there, and there’s the sharp idea that we’re going to make a dramatic announcement every day. I noticed in Norman Webster’s column that today’s dramatic announcement was going to be from the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch). We heard that.

Mr. Lewis: It certainly was.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We understand the Premier is up tomorrow. He hasn’t been in the House for the last two days, so it will be interesting to hear what he has to say tomorrow.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Was the Leader of the Opposition here for the last two days?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe he’ll table the redistribution report. What do you bet that’s going to be the dramatic announcement for tomorrow? We’ll see.

Mr. Turner: Tell us about it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’ll tell you this, Mr. Speaker: I believe the former Treasurer will agree with me when I say that speech was the worst Throne Speech ever read in this Legislature since 1944, when George Drew wrote a speech that was designed to be defeated. That’s the kind of speech this is.

Mr. Renwick: There were worse ones before that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: What about the Throne Speech in 1935?

Ms. R. F. Nixon: One would almost think that the minister is in charge of defeating the government rather than trying to save their bacon. They won’t be defeated with their top-heavy majority; there’s no doubt about that. There is no doubt they won’t be defeated here, but they will be defeated in the province when we go to the polls this year. The sooner we go the better. Make it this spring. Make it this fall. Make it any time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Make it today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The longer the Tories stay in office, the more their policies are burying the party. They are heading for defeat, and we are going to defeat them. We are confident, not so much that it’s time for a change after 32 years of Tory rule --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The leader of the Opposition is suffering from sunstroke.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- but it’s time for a change after four years of the present premiership.

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves, seconded by Mr. Deacon, that the motion be amended by adding the following words:

“That this House regrets the failure of the government to enunciate a programme to moderate the combined effects of unemployment and inflation on our people and the economy; the lack of a housing programme that will significantly reverse the downward trend in housing starts; the absence of a clear commitment and programme to stop the waste in government spending caused by duplication of services, overlapping of government jurisdictions and bad administrative judgement; the absence of action to improve general-labour management negotiation procedures, which have been so detrimental to our economy and to the work force; the failure to enunciate a programme for the retention of agricultural land in production with compensation for landholders affected; and therefore that the government no longer has the confidence of this House or the people of Ontario.”

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Hasn’t changed for a long time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sounds even better when the Speaker reads it.

Some hon. members: Carried.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Send that off to Ottawa.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Would Ottawa approve that?

Mr. Lewis: You read that with conviction, Mr. Speaker, understandably.

An hon. member: Who is next?

Mr. Lewis: I follow the member for Hamilton Mountain. I wouldn’t miss this for the world.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Would the leader of the NDP read it with the same conviction?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I convey through you, Mr. Speaker, the very best wishes to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor as she continues in her very fine manner her role as the representative of the Crown in the Province of Ontario.

To you sir, Mr. Speaker, may I say how pleased I am at your appointment. It is not only an honour to the people of Northumberland as recognition of your legislative abilities and contribution to this House, but it is also good to see that a fisherman of note now occupies the position of Speaker of this House.

I’ve listened with interest, Mr. Speaker, to most of the comments of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I am particularly concerned about some of the allegations and inferences made in his closing remarks regarding the school system of this province.

Week by week of late I’ve been aware of comments made to me by students with whom I come in contact who are attending the post-secondary institutions across this province. It is interesting that they are saying to me how lucky they are, how glad they are that they are residents of Ontario because of the wide scope of opportunity offered to them here in Ontario as opposed, say, to the financial stress and burden of similar students of their position in the United States and other jurisdictions.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Sounds as if he is in the dredging business.

Mr. J. R. Smith: One of the comments made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition that was of concern to me was the criticism of the regional offices.

I’d like to remind the hon. members of this House, sir, through you, that 89 per cent of the grants from this government go directly in the form of administrative grants to the local boards of education; and I think that’s very important. Also, 3.7 per cent of the budget is for ministry administrative purposes. This also includes the cost of the schools for the deaf and the blind and the regional offices.

As I have gone to various parts of this province, particularly the more distant areas of northwestern Ontario, on behalf of the Minister of Education, I have become very conscious of the role being played by the regional offices in places like the Lakehead and Thunder Bay, or those down in eastern Ontario, at Kingston and so on. I think those in the educational field at the grassroots level of education would be the last ones who would want to see these offices closed. They are on a flat-line budget. They have had no increase, the same as the ministry’s administrative cost this year. They are on a fiat-line budget and they are doing a very admirable job.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. J. R. Smith: We go into places like Fort Frances and see people from the district office in there conducting workshops for the classroom teachers, and then a few weeks later I had occasion to be in the lobby of this very building and saw a group of children with a Portapak, recording the experience of visiting this building. I inquired as to where they came from and it was from a rural school at Sturgeon Creek near Fort Frances. That very same regional office at Thunder Bay carries on work in some of the more isolated settlements, such as Nakina. For just a portion of that 3.7 per cent we see breakthroughs in some of the more isolated communities.

On the subject of Nakina, I think a real bouquet should be given to the regional administrator, because in that town be was able to bring together the separate school and the public school and convince them of the merits of building a joint community school. This is, I think, a very interesting innovation. It has application, I know not to every situation but it is worthy of every support to see how it works out. The people in Nakina, through this joint venture, have many added features built into their school of which they are very proud.

Seven point three per cent of the ministry’s budget is in transfer payments and various research facilities such as OISE, educational communications and television and so on. While I think it is very easy to stand up and to be very critical of education and say how bad the schools are, the more I go into the classrooms of Ontario the more I am impressed. Indeed, I sat recently with three headmasters from Hamilton; one was a principal of Hill Park, the other of Sherwood Secondary School and the other one was from one of the large secondary schools in the east end of the city. They had been visiting, as part of the Ontario Headmasters’ Conference in Montreal, classrooms in the secondary system in Montreal and they said that while that system was very proud of its pupil-teacher ratio, from their personal observations and their humble opinion the schools in Hamilton, and the conditions and what was happening there, were so much superior. That’s what I get when I go to other places.

As for those who are so critical of the schools, I always ask them, “When were you last in your local neighbourhood school?” Indeed, I hope the forthcoming Ontario Education Week in April will provide an opportunity for everyone to get into the local secondary school and see what really is happening. I think there is a lot we should be proud of in our educational system. It’s pretty fine.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne, although very brief, stated at the end:

“The government of Ontario holds every confidence that its legislative programme in this session, together with the budget, will contribute substantially to the improvement of the provincial economy, strengthen the security and well-being of our people, and give incentive to every citizen in Ontario to pursue active, productive lives upon which the continued prosperity of our province ultimately depends.”

I think this was the keystone of that very brief statement. In this regard, the well-being of our people, most of us as members have undoubtedly been very busy lately assisting constituents in filing their federal income tax returns, and one return of which I have made a mental note was of a widow lady who had a very small, modest home on Hamilton Mountain.

I think it has been a key thing with this government to keep people in their own homes as long as possible. Her municipal taxes were $363 and by filing her Ontario property tax credit form, she received $180 for the shelter credit; 10 per cent of her taxes, $36; $110 as an old age pensioner; and $27.72 rebate on her retail sales tax, which amounted to $353.72. Believe me, that’s the kind of help I like seeing the people get who really need it the most. In fact, she had a differential on her tax bill of $20.

Recently, one of the members of the Hamilton city council said the province should assume all the cost of education. Perhaps we shouldn’t have any more total blanket programmes, handing out money to everybody. There should be more and greater continued emphasis on assisting those who really need the help, assisting people so that they can stay and live in their homes with dignity and pride.

The Minister of Housing certainly has one of the most difficult portfolios in his ministry. There are great demands and many influences on the housing programme and construction in the province which possibly could be beyond his control. In the region of Hamilton-Wentworth we have seen hundreds of lots come available through the Ontario HOME programme. Although there has been criticism of some aspects of this lottery scheme, nevertheless I stand behind the basic idea of a HOME lottery. We saw when it was given out to private individuals or contractors on proposal calls that some people tried to circumvent the programme by devious means. Many of them have been investigated by the police and prosecution is pending, and it didn’t work out.

I am also very glad to note that the Minister of Housing has initiated a marketing research survey. I hope with the comments of the hon. members that the results of the survey will be used to revise and improve the HOME lottery programme. The one very unfair aspect of the current Saltfleet lottery is that a person with one child is eligible to qualify in the lottery for a four-bedroom home. Yet a couple with three children presently living in a two-bedroom home under crowded conditions, as many are in my riding, are now precluded from entering as they presently own a dwelling. To me, this is wrong and something should be done to open it up again so that these people can have a chance to participate in forthcoming lotteries.

Major and very sizable grants have been made to the city of Hamilton, and were very well received by our good mayor and council, for the OHAP programme. Here again, not too many in my riding live in such dwellings, but there are many other areas in this city to the northend where there is great need to improve the housing stock of the people, their sanitary drains, their eavestroughing, their roofs and all the basic things so they can stay in their homes and not be forced out by speculators or by the costs of home repairs. This is really great, because too long we tried urban renewal and the end result isn’t all that impressive. Sure, we have a new Civic Square with a luxurious indoor shopping mall and all the other attributes. We have new secondary schools and new public schools on the north end of Hamilton, and we have some new row housing in the north end.

There is still far too much open land left from those urban renewal demolitions that hasn’t been put back into providing single-family or row housing or some form of shelter for the people who lived in that area. We’ve been knocking down too many dwellings because we thought they were substandard or too small when, in fact, they should have been rehabilitated and upgraded. I think in other areas of the world, particularly in Wales, for example, much of the emphasis is being placed on the rehabilitation of existing dwellings, the conversion of them into multiple dwellings or putting in amenities and facilities to make them homes again.

We see here in Ontario, particularly in Hamilton, a real step forward being made to assisting the homeowners, those on low incomes, in providing them with the wherewithal to stay in their own homes. The old saying “Home, sweet home, there is no place like home”, I think, is the key.

I would hope the minister would press Central Mortgage and Housing to conclude the agreement for the immediate redevelopment of Mohawk Gardens on Hamilton Mountain. This assemblage of wartime houses has been a centre of controversy for many years, ever since its relocation. The engineering firm of Moffat and Moffat, I believe, was appointed to work with the local community association which is a very worthy organization called the Sherwin community association. Agreement was reached by the tenants, by the executive of the association, by the community and everyone to go ahead with the programme but now it would appear that red tape is stalling it. I would hope that later this year we would see the development get under way so that these people who presently live in housing which truly isn’t up to good enough standards might be provided with an opportunity for better housing and shelter.

I was surprised at the Leader of the Opposition berating this government over its senior citizen accommodation because indeed in our municipality that is one of the foremost visible projects --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): He didn’t do that now.

Mr. J. R. Smith: -- or endeavours of this government.

Mr. Haggerty: He didn’t berate any senior citizens homes in Hamilton.

Mr. J. R. Smith: No, he said, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member from Fort Erie, that there was a need, that many areas did not have enough senior citizens housing. I can only speak for my own area and we certainly have not enough but we see that we have 2,000 and there are approximately 800 presently under construction.

Mr. Haggerty: More than his share.

Mr. J. R. Smith: One of the really good things is that the location of many of these new buildings seems to be a consideration. Ontario Housing Corp. has taken into consideration bus routes and proximity to neighbourhood stores, churches and other facilities. I am very pleased that a 245-unit building is under construction at Hamilton Mountain because one of the real beefs of our seniors has been that if they are fortunate enough to be offered senior citizen accommodation, often they have had to move down into the city away from their centre of life, their family and so on, into an area of the city in which they really do not want to live. The minister has been very sensitive to the requests of the people and I am glad to see this.

Related to this very same thing is that I would hope Ontario Housing could put in some small amenities. For example, one of the real problems in some of these homes is a simple thing like ironing boards. I think at present none of the units has an ironing board built into the wall. It sounds a very trivial thing to raise here but nevertheless to a person who has a handicap or is very elderly, it’s a real problem and apparently it is one of the major obstacles in many of these units.

Similarly, the need is there in some of the larger complexes. I have asked the Hamilton District Health Council to investigate the provision of some kind of clinical assistance or help in the form of nurse’s visits or regular visits by a family practitioner interested in geriatrics and preventive medicine and so on to some of these centres on a regular basis. At present they are advised, if there is an emergency, to call the local hospital which, in turn, usually advises them to get either an ambulance or a taxicab and get to the emergency unit at the local hospital. I think there is a great deal more to be done in the form of preventive medical assistance and social assistance on the spot.

Similarly, I would agree in part with the Leader of the Opposition about the need for more nursing home beds. I know that from my own experience in Hamilton and particularly on Hamilton Mountain. Here again, representing the geographical area of Hamilton Mountain, representing almost approximately a third of the residential community, we find that we have only one nursing home. So here again, when seniors become forced to find this kind of accommodation, they are very, very limited in their scope.

If they’re fortunate enough to get into the local home for the aged in its bedcare wing, they are indeed very fortunate. Or they can go to a private nursing home. But the bulk of them, almost 95 per cent to 98 per cent of these facilities, are in the lower part of the city. This causes a real problem for seniors because their friends can no longer get to visit them; they have to make bus transfers and so on; they’re away from their family. To be very blunt about it, the air is much better on the mountain; it’s important for their health that they be there just to breathe the air on higher ground.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Is the member suggesting the air is less pure elsewhere in Hamilton?

Mr. J. R. Smith: Exactly. The air in Hamilton has improved a great deal in the past seven or eight years under the various ministers of the environment; it’s getting better all the time. But it’s always been better on the mountain, and I suppose it always will be.

Now, on nursing homes, we definitely need more beds in Hamilton. The assessment placement agency is indeed a real breakthrough in the form of nursing care home care. I would like to say to you, sir, that I hope that other members will push in their electoral districts or communities for an assessment placement office. This agency in Hamilton has a full index of all nursing home beds and facilities -- everything in the region. They work in co-operation with the patient, the family physician and the various agencies and homes to provide fine places for these people. Such a thing does not exist even in this so-called progressive city of Toronto.

I think those who are critical of this government should be very cautious. There’s the saying, “If you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones.” Our sister province of Quebec has had a very long-established Liberal government. I think one of the tragedies of that government has been its neglect of its senior citizens. As people in eastern Ontario will tell you, Mr. Speaker, Quebec has neglected its senior citizens’ housing, and there is no nursing home insurance programme available for seniors in Quebec. It would be interesting to know how many Quebec senior citizens find themselves in Ontario nursing home care -- I’ve heard it said that there are many who have members of their family in that position; they have them move into Ontario so that when they have the residency requirement here they can qualify for our benefits.

During the estimates of the Ministry of Education a great deal was said about the need for better French-language instruction for English-speaking students. In particular, the hon. member for Sudbury East, I know, had a great number of very valuable comments to make on this very important issue. I’ve made it a point to try and see firsthand some of the French immersion programmes, and I would agree with him that the concept is really good.

Counties such as Peel and the Ottawa board and so on have French immersion programmes, and I would like particularly also to mention the programme of the Protestant school board of greater Montreal where I think approximately 5,000 elementary students are presently participating in immersion programmes. There they have two opportunities to enter a programme on a voluntary basis. From K to either grade 3 or 4 it is total French immersion. After that, from grade 4 to 8 it’s on a percentage basis where they go back into the English-language programme. When they reach grade 7 they have the option of attending for one year a total immersion grade 7 programme in an all-French-language environment.

One of the keys to the success of any form of French immersion programme is motivation. This motivation has to come from a number of places. Leadership has to come from the local board. The motivation has to come from the parents and from the student, and, of course, I think it has to have basic application to the place where the child is living. In other words, does he or she have an opportunity to speak to people at the bus stop, give directions to someone in the French language on occasion? Do they have an opportunity to ask somebody, a neighbour or someone, a question in French and so on?

Unless there is a motivation and a genuine and practical use available to the student, and obvious to the student, I don’t really see much point in it. That’s why I am beginning to question some of the federal government’s bilingual programmes and the millions and millions of dollars that are being spent to try and make everyone in this country bilingual.

I feel it is an impossibility, because everyone is not motivated to learn French; nor should people be forced to learn a second language if it is against their personal choice or wishes.

In the matter of education as well, only last Wednesday the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Education were attending a social function in my constituency. As a purely coincidental thing, several of the members of my association had as their guest a young lad from Attawapiskat, who was a graduate this summer of the ministry’s teacher education course for native teachers at OTEC campus at McMaster University in Hamilton. She asked to say a few words and bring greetings from the people of Attawapiskat. Then, in quite an unsolicited manner, she made a very, very definite statement of appreciation to the Minister of Education for his concerns for native education and for what the ministry is doing in the form of training of native teachers and the curriculum.

This was really an encouraging thing to see a visitor from the far north bring such words because, indeed, sympathy with the native people is very, very strong here in southern Ontario, and so much more can be done and should be done to assist these people.

The matter of the environment, which the hon. member for Thunder Bay mentioned, is quite naturally a major issue in an industrial city such as I represent. We have seen vast improvements made in the air quality. I notice the Metro Toronto radio stations now always give the pollution index ratings on a daily basis for both Toronto and Hamilton; and it is sort of a pleasant interlude for a change from the hockey scores -- to sort of see who is ahead.

Now, those hon. members who had opportunity last year to visit Dofasco could not help but be impressed by the air cleaning devices and facilities that have been installed -- very sophisticated equipment that has been designed, manufactured and installed by the Canadian Westinghouse Co. at the Hamilton Dofasco plant.

The Minister of the Environment announced last Wednesday that they are going to install in Hamilton Harbour -- and heaven knows it is going to need it by the time the full inquiry of the Hamilton Harbour has been completed -- an aeration device to try to get more oxygen back into Hamilton Harbour.

I would hope, if it is feasible, that similar units should be installed in Cootes Paradise; because that area will quickly die if there should be further effluent from the sewage plant in Dundas. Cootes Paradise is a very famous wildlife sanctuary. The ecological balance of wildlife, plant and marine life in Cootes Paradise as is greatly threatened. Perhaps the new aeration programme has great prospects and could bring a new life to that very, very beautiful and unique part of Hamilton-Wentworth.

I would also ask, through you, sir, the hon. Minister of the Environment to see that Hamilton gets a good refund on the major investment it has made on the SWARU, which is a waste disposal incineration programme. The city has pioneered this. Indeed, it has been a forerunner in all of North America in developing such a programme. And now that the province has embarked upon providing similar facilities for the more backward other regions surrounding southern Ontario on a very good cost-free basis, I think Hamilton deserves recognition in a monetary fashion for the vast amount of money it has expended for its SWARU programme.

Similarly, I would like to commend the minister for the programme for the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Already we see that they are taking a very active interest in the escarpment through our region. I am very anxious personally to see a goodly portion, or a major portion, that is, of the Allarco properties on Highway 403 and Mohawk Rd. acquired for a provincial park. In this age of energy conservation, it’s almost pointless from a traffic point of view, with the congestion on the roads going north, for people in southern Ontario from the major cities there to have to battle their way north to get fresh air and a place to stretch their legs and enjoy the fresh air and sunshine. Here the Allarco property in Hamilton has been designated as that and provides an ideal opportunity, along with Fifty Point Park, to provide for a mini provincial park right here where the people are. Parks for the people. It’s going to be an expensive business but I think it has a top priority and should be acquired.

During the opening ceremonies of the House, we saw a great deal of disturbance in the front of the building -- and I must say that Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor conducted herself very well through all of that -- by people who were upset and I could say agitated by policies and actions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Although I do not condone their actual method, I cannot help but say that perhaps there is cause for further improvement in the procedures of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

The new chairman of that board has worked very hard, I know, to improve things, but from personal experience I still find that claims are taking too long to be processed by the various levels of the board. Work persons have to wait too long very often for their money. I don’t like to be critical because on so many occasions the councillors there, the claims officers, have expedited and assisted in claims, but it’s just the volume which is so heavy. Although they seem to have increased their administrative quota there, I think we can still get greater results and greater productivity in processing the claims. Something should be done so that this backlog doesn’t build up.

One of the real problems is that the Workmen’s Compensation Board has yet to decentralize and open up field offices. The new chairman has promised me faithfully that he is going to open an office in Hamilton sometime this year. That promise has developed into a statement that regional office is going to be opened in Hamilton. I would like to say, sir, through you to the Workmen’s Compensation Board that they shouldn’t delay any longer, because if they do open a regional office it’s going to take longer to get the personnel and a whole programme lined up.

There’s an immediate need for an office to serve the workers in the city of Hamilton. Why should people in Hamilton have to phone long distance and pay at their own expense for a call to the city of Toronto where the board’s office is? It’s perfectly ridiculous.

Everything is provided here for the people in Toronto. The telephone lines are open. They can walk here. They can get there on the streetcar. Everything is provided for people in this large city but we’re forgetting the workers out there, the workers in the other large cities and the small towns, villages and farms that surround these other large regional centres, such as Hamilton, Ottawa and so forth. There’s a real need to have a place where people can go and get the red tape straightened out.

Just imagine, if you can, Mr. Speaker, the problems that arise when an immigrant worker who has a very limited education and a limited ability to read English, let alone speak it, is confronted with a letter asking for all kinds of information from his employer, from his physician, from his specialist and so on. What does he do and where does he go?

I find, as a local member, that an increasing amount of my constituency caseload is being taken up by workers who are having difficulty having their claims processed by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. If they were to open up some of these facilities as soon as possible, not only in Hamilton but in other areas, perhaps something could be done. The people best off when it comes to using the services are indeed those who belong to some of the major unions, such as the United Steelworkers, Local 1005, who have great people who look after their members whenever they need the services of the board. They represent their workers and their members very well indeed, but there are countless others who are not members of Local 1005 in the broader community who need similar services.

Her Honour made mention of the need for greater protection and help to law enforcement agencies and the general public so that our cities and streets will remain among the safest and most secure in North America. Certainly one of the hallmarks, one of the finest things about living in Ontario, has been the safety of our streets and communities. Perhaps it is one of the reasons why people from our region no longer feel comfortable about the idea of having to go across the border to visit Buffalo.

In fact, Buffalo used to be one of the major attractions for people in southern Ontario for many things. Today people are very wary and very cautious, and nobody goes there from Canada or Ontario unless they have specific reasons to visit friends or relatives or some business appointment. They are afraid to go. They are afraid of being mugged, of having their car damaged or scratched or bumped. They are afraid to walk on the streets.

We don’t want to see this kind of situation creep across the border and up into Ontario. We see it in other communities, and it is a concern of our people that our streets are safe and that the people of this province are safe in their homes. All of us are concerned about the inroads revealed by the crime investigation in the Province of Quebec. We see the tentacles of organized crime spreading and we abhor it. We are also concerned about the petty crimes, such as purse snatching, break-ins and vandalism, that are at the other end of the criminal scale.

I hope the minister will take into his confidence those in the law protection services, those who walk the beats, who drive the cars and who answer the complaints and calls from affected citizens, as well as those in the various social agencies. Something has to be done to tighten up on the bail procedures, the remands, the backlogs in our courts, the people put out on probation and so on.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications made a statement recently about the break-ins and the serious vandalism in his offices in the east end of Hamilton by a group of juveniles, I believe, who were out on either probation or bail. It is certainly most discouraging for the law enforcement officers who apprehend these individuals.

I would like to see more money put into local police forces for prevention and the upgrading of their facilities and so on.

I would also like to see the various police commissions expanded, where the request comes from the regional municipalities. Indeed, I feel that our Hamilton-Wentworth Police Commission should be expanded. A very fine group of gentlemen, including the mayor of city, are currently the police commissioners, and we are proud of our police force. Nevertheless, now that it looks after the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, enlarging that board by perhaps two or three could do a great deal to give broader representation to the whole community.

I think a very positive and worthy request that has come from the community is one by the Hamilton-Wentworth Council of Women, who are currently canvassing the members of this assembly from all parties for their support for the appointment of a woman to the Hamilton-Wentworth Police Commission. I think this is most worthy and commendable and I would hope that before long this can become a reality. They bring a new dimension and a good contribution to the commission.

One of the really good announcements of the government, although not contained in the Speech from the Throne, was the announcement by the hon. member for Lincoln that Ontario is now going to have a sports and recreation lottery. People in my area have long been fed up; they have the distinct impression that far too much money from Ontario is being siphoned on a regular basis into the Province of Quebec to assist their various programmes, talking of the Quebec provincial lottery. Similarly, in the western part of the province, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars is being siphoned off into the neighbouring Provinces of Manitoba by participation in their provincial lottery.

Needless to say, according to the Prime Minister of this country, there is still a very considerable amount of money being transferred from Canada, of which Ontario is the largest component, to the Republic of Ireland for the Irish Sweepstakes lottery. The moneys that can come back to the community for cultural and recreational pursuits are tremendous. We can keep the money here for our own people. I know that various communities are already putting forward ideas and proposals for portions of the lottery fund, and this afternoon, sir, I would like to put a word in for a major allocation for the people of Hamilton-Wentworth.

Already a great number of meetings and consultations have been conducted by the board, with the president of Mohawk Community College, on the idea of constructing a major sports and recreation complex at the Fennell Ave. campus of Mohawk College. This is a tremendous campus facility and although located on the mountain, it has easy access to the major mountain roads; namely, the Queen St. hill and the Claremont access. So, in effect, its geographic location makes it almost the central hub of the whole region, and to the south it’s easy travelling up Dundas and Ancaster, Mount Hope, Caledonia and so on. We would like to see the proposed complex include both swimming and diving facilities of Olympic specifications.

Although the total planned facilities and the respective specifications vary according to the several alternatives which the Mohawk College board has developed, the facility would benefit Mohawk College greatly by its student use of these facilities. Its recreation course students, working with the Hamilton recreation committee, could make tremendous use of it.

The basic facility which would appear to meet the minimum needs of both the community and the institutions, including the psychiatric hospital, would currently involve construction costs of approximately $3 million. I feel this large expenditure of funds could be justified, because there is a real need for this facility. It would do a great deal also to upgrade the already enviable record that Hamilton-Burlington swimmers have on an international scale and also to provide a facility for people who no longer can enjoy swimming facilities of Hamilton Harbour and have very limited access or practical use, because of the coldness of Lake Ontario and the distance of the Lake Erie beaches from our city.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Council of Churches, through the heads of the local major churches of the Province of Ontario, recently made a submission to the Premier of this province for us to match dollar for dollar all contributions made by Ontarians to agencies involved with international or Canadian development aid programmes. These involve the Canadian Save the Children Fund, Oxfam, UNICEF, Catholic World Relief, or the Lutheran programme, that of the Mennonite Church, the Primate’s World Relief, and so on.

Already the Province of Manitoba is involved in a matching dollar for dollar programme and I think this not only stimulates and encourages the agencies involved to raise more funds from their constituencies and the community, it also is a manifestation by the government of the province of support for what these funds are doing. In turn the dollar for dollar match by the provincial government becomes $4 with the matching grants of the federal government, and so a $1 contribution grows into $4 for development aid.

We live in a very affluent part of the world. Indeed it has been said a great deal lately that 75 per cent, I believe, of the immigrants to Canada come to live in Ontario. Is there any wonder? Is there any finer place to live? Every time I leave Ontario, I come back and say, this is where it’s at. How lucky we are. Speak to the immigrants who come here from everywhere. No wonder their aunts and uncles and cousins all want to come and live in Ontario -- because of the wonderful way of life which we enjoy and the other benefits that we receive here.

I think we have a commitment as a people, as a nation, to those of the third world. Although we are in an age of inflation and we all have problems with that, those in the underdeveloped third world are having even greater problems. We are very richly blessed with agricultural products here in Ontario and it encourages me greatly to see that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has already in this past year made good grants of Ontario beans, I believe, to Cyprus and to other problem areas of the world. But we can do far more and I hope that the current programme of assisting those in the third world being conducted by the Council of Churches will in time, and before too long, gain the support of the majority of the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier, the difficulty that those of us in southern Ontario have now in reaching the wilderness areas of Ontario because of congestion on the roads. Also the high cost of gasoline prevents many people from travelling great distances; it’s a consideration they now must make.

One thing that I can never really understand is why the Minister of Transportation and Communications will not embark upon a feasibility study for the extension of Highway 6 into northern Ontario -- into the vacation land is what I’m really talking about. For the life of me, I can’t understand why at present all the traffic from Windsor, from the Niagara Peninsula, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, western New York, is funnelled and eventually ends up on the Queen Elizabeth Way and then up Highway 400 to the vacation area for southern Ontarians. It is a tremendous congestion and cost problem. Surely this traffic could be diverted north over Highway 6 and then north beyond Guelph; it would do a great deal to take the pressure off those other very important road links.

Secondly, I hope that this province will, with all the muscle and wisdom it has, strenuously fight in the courts and before the Canadian Transport Commission the attempts being made by some parts of the trucking industry to open up trucking on Sunday in the Province of Ontario. This is the one day that the motorists of this province have the roads to themselves for family enjoyment and pleasure and relaxation. Those of us here in southern Ontario for the rest of the week tolerate the trucking industry on our roads. We know that they pay a very high rate of taxes. We know they are very important to the economy and are a lifeline of our economy with the jobs they provide but for this very reason also it would be a threat to the whole life style of our people if Sunday trucking were to become a reality.

Not only does it cause an increase in the traffic on the roads on Sundays, the truckers who drive these trucks have to work on Sundays. Then there are the countless tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people in Ontario who would then be obliged to work on Sundays to see that these trucks are loaded and unloaded. Then all of the industries, even smaller industries perhaps, should be working seven days a week so these trucks can be loaded and so on. There is the whole servicing of this very vast and important industry. We, as a government, should take a very definite stand to see that commercial trucking does not become a reality in Ontario. One thing I would like answered is why already on the Queen Elizabeth Way, I have noticed between Toronto and Hamilton on Sundays -- afternoons in particular -- transports are visible. Why are they not being taken off the road? We see them on the road already and it just seems to be the tip of an iceberg that’s ready to surge up and overwhelm us as a people. I think it’s a very, very dangerous thing. It is certainly a step backward and I hope the minister will do everything possible to see that this does not occur. I am encouraged that the city of Hamilton is taking a very strong stand on this and is going to be represented at the hearings to oppose Sunday trucking.

We in Ontario indeed are fortunate, when one looks at other parts of the globe, with the stable government we have and a basically stable economy.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would like to share this with the hon. members. We don’t have enough humour from time to time and it was reported in the Hamilton press the other day -- I hope the member for Riverdale will forgive me for saying this but it is really said in good faith and a sense of good humour -- that Major Brown at the annual meeting of the Hamilton-Wentworth Salvation Army related the story of how a member of that very fine organization approached his captain one Sunday morning at the local citadel in London’s east end and said, “Captain, how should I vote in the general elections next Monday?” The captain replied, “Of course, sir, the Salvation Army is apolitical. I can’t say, but I will give you a hint. Should you come to the citadel next Sunday morning the opening hymn will be, if the Conservatives win, “Praise God from Whom all Blessings flow.” Should the Liberals win, it will be “God moves in a Mysterious Way” and if Labour wins, it shall be, “Oh, God, our Help in Ages Past.”

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, initially I would like to state to you that the leader of my party had made arrangements on Friday last with the House leader that he would participate in this debate on Tuesday afternoon and has made arrangements along that line. Since the House leader is always anxious to expedite the business of the House in his own inimitable way, he asked some of us if we would co-operate with him and, of course, in my case, being a person who is co-operative and who is also anxious to see the business of the House expedited as the House leader is, I agreed I would at least deliver part of what I had to say in this debate this afternoon.

Mr. Renwick: The party is dedicated to co-operation.

Mr. Young: So here we are on another session. First of all, as I start my presentation, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, as others have done and will do, my word of congratulations to you on being appointed to this high office -- I think perhaps it’s the first opportunity I have had to do this officially -- and to say that we are pleased with the way in which you do the work of the House.

We are not always delighted, let’s say. We’re not always in agreement completely with the decisions you might make. But I think, from the time when you were the chairman of the committee of the whole House until the present time of your very great elevation you have improved markedly.

Mr. Renwick: You should read the rule book one day.

Mr. Young: We expect that this improvement will continue until the end of this session, whenever that end might be. We want to offer our word of congratulations.

I also want to offer congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne, not because of the very great quality of what they had to say in their arguments --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Oh, I’m disappointed. I thought it was because of the content.

Mr. Young: -- but because of the very great courage these people showed in defending this government in the first place. It is a government which perhaps needs defence but which, in the eyes of many of us, is sort of on its way out. Also we think that they deserve congratulations because of their courage in defending, or in even moving and seconding, a Speech from the Throne which is as wishy-washy and without content as this one was. Certainly it was unfortunate that this government saw fit for the first time that our charming Lieutenant Governor read the Speech from the Throne to impose upon her this kind of a speech without actual content. We’re sorry for that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: We’re very sorry for that. When the next session rolls around, whoever may be the government, and we think there’ll be a change, then we expect the content to be improved. At least if this party forms a government, I’m sure it will.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: And we look forward to that day coming.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): How does it look?

Mr. Young: Well, very good I would say from where I stand.

I would like to make a comment, Mr. Speaker, on the content of the speeches that these two gentlemen made in moving and seconding the speech. They were disappointed that I had not congratulated them on the content, and I’m going to tell them why. I’m going to start with the seconder. I have here the instant Hansard of his speech. I’m rather intrigued by some of the statements that he makes. He says this, and I quote him directly:

“We are all aware of the various serious silicosis problem affecting our miners in Elliot Lake and other areas of the province.”

I may be wrong, but certainly in my hearing, and I’m not here all the time, as most members aren’t, this was the first time that this member has raised this matter publicly on the floor of this House. If I’m wrong, perhaps he can correct me. He may say to me that he has raised the matter privately with the minister, and no doubt he has from time to time. But he goes on to say this:

“Mr. Speaker, I regard the appointment of the commission as a very positive step in the right direction. However, it seems to me that much could have been accomplished and sooner [And I underline that word ‘sooner.’] if all parties had worked together and laid aside personal and political differences. Officials of the United Steelworkers of America in Elliot Lake chose to ignore me and direct all their requests through NDP members.”

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): He was never available.

Mr. Young: He said:

“Until a few weeks ago, I had no communication from the union. I received not a visit, a phone call, a letter, a brief or any type of communication of any kind.”

Mr. Foulds: Not so.

Mr. Young: He said:

“Three weeks ago was the first such an approach in three years that I’ve been a member of this House.”

In respect to these comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of observations. In the first place, the member knew very well what was happening in Elliot Lake underground and otherwise. He knew very well what was happening. If he had wanted to, he could well have approached the steelworkers union -- they’re an approachable group -- and he could have talked over the problem with them. They would have welcomed him, I’m certain of that:

Mr. J. Lane (Algoma-Manitoulin): I approached the minister.

Mr. Martel: He spoke to whom?

Mr. Lane: I approached the minister.

Mr. Young: The hon. member says that he approached the minister. That’s fine.

Mr. Foulds: How close?

Mr. Young: In other words the member approached the minister, and so officially, from the member, the minister was aware of the problem. Unfortunately, the minister did nothing about it. This is our quarrel.

Mr. Martel: For 15 years.

Mr. Young: The member for Sudbury East and other members who knew what the situation was in Elliot Lake raised this problem in this House. They raised it here first. The member for Sudbury East went to Elliot Lake on several occasions, saw what was happening, understood the problem, came back and raised it again in the House.

In other words, as far as public awareness was concerned, Mr. Speaker -- because the member for Algoma-Manitoulin says he raised it privately -- as far as public awareness was concerned in this House it was brought to the attention of the minister and to the public by the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Long before.

Mr. Young: Even though that matter was brought to the minister’s attention by the member, and even though at a later date it was brought to the public’s attention by the member for Sudbury East, the minister still did not act; and this is where we quarrelled.

Mr. Martel: He denied it, I recall.

Mr. Young: He said it was a wage dispute.

Mr. Martel: The minister said it was a wage dispute.

Mr. Young: A wage dispute, a matter of collective bargaining, I don’t know.

Mr. Lane: All members opposite were looking for was political advantage.

Mr. Martel: “It was a wage dispute,” quoth the minister.

Mr. Young: All right, let me say this: The members say that if all parties had worked together the thing could have been done; but I say to him that at that time the minister had the power to appoint the commission. He had power to act. He had power to say to the company: “Clean up the situation underground or else we will penalize you.” He didn’t do it.

Mr. Martel: He still hasn’t done it.

Mr. Young: The other thing that really intrigues me is this: “if all the parties had worked together much could have been accomplished, and sooner.”

Now what does this mean, Mr. Speaker? Is the member for Algoma-Manitoulin saying that the minister would have acted sooner if the New Democrats had not brought this to public attention? Is this what he is saying? That he will not act if opposition parties bring these matters to his attention? Is this what he is saying?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: No, no.

Mr. Young: I have heard that time after time; that unless you elect a government member you don’t get action.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: No, no.

Mr. Lane: He only hears out of one ear.

Mr. Young: Unless a government member brings this to public attention we don’t get action. That is what is going on and is being said right here in this House.

Mr. Martel: Give it to them.

Mr. Young: And, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to recognize that --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I didn’t mean that. Let’s be fair; don’t play politics.

Mr. Stokes: What do we do when a government member won’t act?

Mr. Young: Right. This is the whole story.

Mr. Lane: The union never recognized me as the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, they only dealt with the NDP.

Mr. Young: When we realize this inaction on the part of a minister was happening while over 50 workers died from silicosis since 1955, that is a large casualty list for any industry.

Mr. Foulds: It’s tantamount to murder.

Mr. Young: And the management, which we are told was concerned about the whole thing, did not act; the minister did not act, even though we had 50 men die since 1955. The member says this: “You know, sir, I too feel very real. I have flesh on my bones and blood in my veins.” Yes, so did the victims of this situation in Elliot Lake. They were living up until a certain period of time when the silicosis finished them off.

Mr. Martel: They are still working in overexposure.

Mr. Young: Right now men are still working underground in Elliot Lake in a situation which should not be tolerated. When the member says: “I will not take advantage of the silicotic miner and his family by making political hay as the NDP are doing”; I wonder just what he means again. Political hay in bringing to the attention of this House the kind of situation that exists there in Elliot Lake?

When he talks about the leader of this party and says that it has been said that he forced action; well I suppose the minister can’t be forced to do anything he doesn’t want to do as far as forcing is concerned, but let me say this, that while the member was talking quietly to the minister, while the member for Sudbury East was talking publicly about this matter here and outside, we still had no action.

So the leader of this party went to Elliot Lake. He investigated that situation with complete and accurate thoroughness. Then he came back to this House and in the committee downstairs he spent almost three hours documenting to the minister, with proof which could not be argued with --

Mr. Martel: And the member for Algoma-Manitoulin didn’t even show up for those estimates.

Mr. Young: -- what was happening in the mines and what was happening to the men in those mines.

The minister, that day, was shaken. There’s no question he was shaken. He said so. I don’t think he realized up to that time how important it was that something be done for Elliot Lake. I don’t think he realized the casualty list that was building up there, and is still building up. But it wasn’t until after that episode, and after the public pressure that was brought to bear in the public media -- the newspapers, the TV screen, the radio, the whole bit -- that finally the minister did appoint a commission to look into the whole situation.

Mr. Martel: In fact, they sent Jewett to France the next day to meet with Dr. Mastromatteo --

Mr. Young: He started to work on the whole thing.

Mr. Martel: Very interesting. They flew him over to Paris. They flew Mastromatteo in from Geneva.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Yorkview is making this speech, I believe.

Mr. Martel: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin didn’t even have the courtesy to come to the estimates.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to see this on the record and to hear the member say these words --

Mr. Martel: He didn’t even show up at the entire estimates, which lasted two weeks.

Mr. Young: He said:

“I say at this time any miner showing any percentage of silicosis wishing to have a job that will not expose him further can and will be retrained and re-employed in the Elliot Lake area. I will also continue working toward a method to subsidize his earnings from the time he leaves the job underground until he is relocated with a comparable earning.”

I was delighted to hear that, but so far I don’t think any announcement has been made that this actually is government policy. I give the member full marks for sincerity in the whole business, now that he is fully aware of what is going on there, but I hope he will now insist to the minister privately, and if necessary, publicly, with all the force at his command, that these words, which he has put on record, will in fact come to fruition and that these men who are still underground, and still silicotic, will have light work, if I can use that phrase which is used by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, with pay comparable -- I trust that means equal -- to what they make as miners.

Mr. Speaker, I commend what I have said to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I trust he will learn from the wisdom that I have laid before him this afternoon. But I hope, more than anything else, that he is now convinced that he must do more than he has done so far for the benefit of his constituents in Elliot Lake.

Mr. Lane: Thanks for telling me.

Mr. Stokes: I’m glad my friend is addressing his remarks to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, because there is no one else across the way to listen.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t toss out Thunder Bay so easily.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Fort William (Mr. Jesseman) looks pretty lonely. He is a nobody.

Mr. Martel: I think this should be sent out to the Elliot Lake people.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the mover of the motion, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox. I would like to read two or three of his quotations. First of all, as he talked a great deal about the system of free enterprise in this province and lauded it to the skies, he said: “Our economic achievement in this province is due to our market economy.” He also said: “The people of Ontario don’t want more government. In any case, they want to get government off their backs.”

That’s an interesting observation. He also says -- if I can find the reference and to be fair to him:

“The fact that this province has been able to develop and grow through the free enterprise system to create a good environment for private development is significant, I think, because otherwise we would not be able to reap the rewards of those profits to purchase the soft services, in terms of a welfare programme, that we’ve been able to do.”

Now, it is agreed that we are getting soft services because of certain things that are happening in the private sector. But let me say this to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox: Soft services began to be purchased by governments dating from the time when governments began to get on the backs of free enterprise and began to interfere with the free enterprise system to channel certain of the benefits created to the people as a whole.

We in the New Democratic Party don’t believe, as the hon. member said, and I quote him: “Contrary to the socialist philosophy that the state should own everything.” The hon. member knows different than that.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): That’s when his mind goes blank.

Mr. Young: He knows differently.

Mr. Lawlor: That is when he becomes frivolous.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I have studied Marx and Engles and the philosophy of the party of hon. members opposite.

Mr. Young: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was exaggerating for the sake of emphasis; I don’t know. But in any case, that’s what he said.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They might let me own my toothbrush if I was fortunate.

Mr. Martel: No.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Let the record show that they wouldn’t even let me own my toothbrush.

Mr. Young: That’s what he said: “Contrary to the socialist philosophy that the state should own everything.”

Mr. Martel: We don’t think he is competent to own a toothbrush.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the state would not be interested in owning the member’s toothbrush or his razor, and a lot of other things.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They wouldn’t even give me one.

Mr. Young: As far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, and I speak through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, because I think he needs to know some of these things. The New Democratic Party believes, as he believes, in a combination of private and public endeavour. However, he thinks that the public intervention should be minimal, whereas we think it should be much more.

Mr. Martel: The profitable part.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: All right, now here’s what I have to say. We believe the state should intervene --

Mr. Martel: We don’t know where the Liberals are, that’s the trouble. They never told anyone. They are off in never-never land.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): We know where we are.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the state should intervene to the extent necessary to see that the productivity of the nation serves social goals; and that the wealth must not flow only into the hands of those who gain control of the means of production. It should also serve those whose labour and whose brainpower create the wealth.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Oh those are only platitudes; just platitudes.

Mr. Young: All right, let’s get this clear. He sang the glories of free enterprise, but then the member began to laud this government for the places in which it had intervened and climbed onto the back of free enterprise. These were the things.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t expect consistency. That would be too much.

Mr. Young: Let me point out what I mean.

Mr. Martel: If he listens he will learn something.

Mr. Stokes: That is called blue socialism.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: Let me point out to the hon. member what I mean; let me quote his words. All right, on page 81 of the instant Hansard for March 13 we have the member for Prince Edward-Lennox saying: “The Ontario government has given approval to several power development projects for Ontario Hydro from 1977 to 1982.” He names them and says they are expansions of the Pickering generating station, the new generating station at Wellesleyville and construction of two additional heavy water plants in the Bruce nuclear power project.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Heavy water may not be what he thinks it is.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, it was back in the early part of this century when a Tory government decided that Hydro was not being produced as cheaply and as efficiently as it ought to be by private enterprise.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It was not only that.

Mr. Young: And so the government moved in in order to ensure a supply to the manufacturing sector of this province and to the people who lived in Ontario. At that very early time the Tories climbed on to the back of private enterprise and not only climbed on to its back but --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That wasn’t climbing on the back.

Mr. Young: -- simply pushed it aside, and said “No longer -- “

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That was creating a proper economic climate.

Mr. Young: All right. This is a field which free enterprise still pre-empts in much of the United States but as far as Canada is concerned, even in British Columbia and Quebec some years ago after each one of them fought an election on free enterprise for hydro, within the year they had socialized the hydro development in those provinces. We did that long, long ago. In other words, free enterprise couldn’t provide the power we needed in Ontario and so we socialized it.

Mr. Martel: We should socialize the farmers.

Mr. Young: We brought it under public ownership.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: I’m just pointing out this fact.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Young: On the same page the member says this, “We have programmes -- “

Mr. Martel: The member doesn’t believe them?

Mr. Young: -- “to develop watts from waste.”

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Young: Sure.

These are forward and progressive steps. The goal of the experiment is to be carried out in the Lakeview generating station. Initially, six reclamation and recycling plants [he’s talking about this whole matter] are to be built at a cost of $17 million for the Kingston, Sudbury, London, Metropolitan Toronto, Halton and Peel areas. That, indeed, is great news and another forward advance [and I might put in the words “into socialism”] in Ontario.

An hon. member: Of course.

Mr. Young: What I am saying is that private enterprise --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Whenever we do something that the member likes he calls it socialism. That’s his definition of socialism.

Mr. Young: All I’m saying to the member through you, Mr. Speaker --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Young: -- is he had better not talk about private enterprise developing this province. The government ought to get off the backs of private enterprise and not lambaste the socialists --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: What about the government getting off the backs of the people?

Mr. Lawlor: As a matter of fact government is not the enemy the member makes it.

Mr. Young: The member says let the government get off the backs of people but it is his government he’s talking about.

Mr. Martel: Right.

Mr. Young: I’d like to know what he means by this.

Mr. Martel: He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, he is; of course he is.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We don’t want too much government.

Mr. Young: I am not sure what this Hansard is going to look like, Mr. Speaker; however, it will look like the member’s did on Friday.

An hon. member: Give him a Liberal speech.

Mr. Young: What has happened in our economy is that free enterprise was concerned with profits. The companies were not concerned with the waste they created; they could do the packaging. They could discard the waste cars. They could build up all kinds of news on paper and then discard it. They were not interested in the recycling or the reclamation of these products. They were not interested in the cost to society of the waste they created.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, they were.

Mr. Martel: Right on.

Mr. Young: So it is that governments --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Private enterprise has constructed recycling plants.

Mr. Young: -- the governments, Mr. Speaker, have had to move in and fill the gap and we have had to socialize the recycling and the disposal of waste in this province as well as everywhere else.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Where does the member get the money to do all these things? The people who produce?

An hon. member: Where does the government get it from?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: By taxing the middle income groups; they’re the people who produce.

Mr. Young: The question I have been asked, Mr. Speaker, is where do we get the money to do these things?

An hon. member: Tax the workers.

Mr. Young: The money is coming --

An hon. member: They are already taxed.

Mr. Martel: Who created it?

Mr. Young: We have the boast that this is now being undertaken. In other words, this government is going to find the money because this government has been forced to find it. The problem is this -- that society pays the cost anyway.

Mr. Martel: Of free enterprise.

Mr. Young: If we have to discard these things and bury them in our dumps, we’ve got to pay the costs. When we have an era of perhaps deliberate and planned obsolescence as we have had, then society is going to pay the cost of that obsolescence in extra goods that we produce, extra material we use and, as I say, in the cost of disposition. We might as well face that cost as a society. We might as well as a socialist enterprise enter into this thing and frankly and fearlessly start to dispose of the waste and to use that waste with as much recovery of assets as we possibly can.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: So the member thinks the state should own the means of production.

Mr. Young: I did not say that. Mr. Speaker, I don’t want the member for Prince Edward-Lennox to put words into my mouth.

Mr. G. Nixon: Mix it up.

Mr. Young: I’m giving him a lesson here. If he doesn’t want to understand me, that’s up to him.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Get right down to the discussion of the means of production.

Mr. Young: Then we come to the fourth matter on page 65 of his speech.

Mr. Martel: He is sounding more like a socialist every day.

Mr. Young: He is very proud of this. The member for Sudbury East said: “That is also following in the footsteps of what BC did. You are late there too.” The member for Prince Edward-Lennox then went on to say -- and it fits in beautifully, although perhaps in fairness to him, I should go back and pick up what he said first, which was:

“The new drug programme was introduced on Sept. 1 extending further the benefit of the province’s health system to allow over half a million residents to receive drugs without charge. Can you imagine that?”

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): My God, don’t tell me the member is against that too.

Mr. Young: In other words, I sat in this House over the years, Mr. Speaker, as you did, and I saw from the beginning the struggle of this party to establish or to have established a health system in this province. We saw government after government headed by successive premiers refuse.

Mr. Martel: That Machiavellian scheme.

Mr. Young: Always leave it in the hands of private enterprise, this was the basis. “We cannot have socialism in health,” they said.

Mr. Martel: John Robarts called it a Machiavellian scheme.

Mr. Young: And I heard this, day after day, year after year, over on those benches, “We cannot socialize the health services.” Yet, finally, what happened, Mr. Speaker? The very rush of events and the demand of the people of this country -- following Saskatchewan and others who brought it in -- the people of Ontario demanded it, and in order to save its bacon again this government brought a health plan to Ontario.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The federal government did. It brought it to all the provinces.

Mr. Young: Well, the federal government laid down the conditions. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government in order to save its bacon and to take advantage of the federal grants did finally introduce socialism in the health plan.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The federal grants were actually given by Ontario from the productivity of its free enterprise.

Mr. Young: However the member slices it, the fact is that the government has brought in a public health plan in Ontario and is now extending it and will extend it. There is no way to go back.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Drugs for the old people. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Young: Saskatchewan had drugs for the old people, Mr. Speaker, back in 1945.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the member could continue his speech.

Mr. Young: That is just another illustration of how this government has been backing into socialist enterprise.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: They are being dragged kicking and squealing into the 20th century.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Yorkview continue his speech.

Mr. Young: Again, we find the hon. member saying this:

“Increased pension benefits to widows, dependants of deceased injured workmen and full compensation for partially injured workmen who are unable to find suitable employment.”

Now, of course, there was a time when all pensions and all insurances like this were handled by private enterprise, by private insurance companies. This government fought this idea for a long time, but finally, again we had to face up to the fact that these things had to come and so the private enterprise system was breached again.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Doesn’t the member agree with that?

Mr. Young: Certainly.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Doesn’t he agree with the government programme?

Mr. Young: I am agreeing with this government programme. All I am doing --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is what we want to hear.

Mr. Young: All right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: All I am saying is that when --

Mr. Stokes: They can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Young: -- a member lauds the free enterprise system and damns the socialist system, he had better realize what he is saying. In other words, while he had very unkind words to say about us and our so-called socialism, everything that he bragged about in this speech of his is government intervention in the private enterprise system.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is not government intervention.

Mr. Martel: What does be call it then?

Mr. Young: What does the member call it then?

An hon. member: Government takeover.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Let’s hear the hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Martel: These free enterprisers! It’s lousy socialist government over there.

Mr. Young: Then again, Mr. Speaker, I find these words from the member for Prince Edward-Lennox:

“In connection with housing, the Ontario Building Code was developed and new legislation passed in the last session which should significantly benefit the citizens of Ontario by ensuring effective building safety standards and evaluating new business techniques and materials.”

When it comes to housing, Mr. Speaker, the fight is still going on in that field, in this government and across Canada. There was a time when we left housing entirely to private enterprise; but we found this, that private enterprise was only interested in high-priced housing for the well-to-do.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s not right.

Mr. Young: That’s right. The poor were being housed through the trickle-down theory: As older houses disintegrated and deteriorated into slums, then the poorer people were able to afford to move into those houses after they had been divided up into smaller apartments.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Hundreds of thousands of houses that were built were for the working man.

Mr. Young: All right.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They were built under the free enterprise marketplace system.

Mr. Young: Agreed. I am not disputing it when the member says that free enterprise did build hundreds of thousands of houses for the working man, but sooner or later we came to the place where no longer would free enterprise build those houses for the working man --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Oh no.

Mr. Young: -- and so Ontario Housing, an enterprise run by this government, was set up here; just as CHMC was set up in Ottava. And let me say this, Mr. Speaker, that while free enterprise built those houses for the working man, they would not finance them. The only way they were able to finance them was through a socialist enterprise in Ottawa, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s not right.

Mr. Young: -- which put public funds into the housing projects.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: What about the trust companies and the banks and the insurance companies?

Mr. Young: All right, the banks and insurance companies played some part in the building of high-priced houses --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Not high priced; the working man’s houses.

Mr. Young: -- but very few bankers would ever allow money to go into low-cost housing. It was too great a risk. But in the long run --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The government doesn’t hold all the mortgages.

Mr. Young: You know, Mr. Speaker, I don’t mind them interrupting, because it shows how little they understand what has been going on in this country.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Martel: I am glad the member said that.

Mr. Young: The fact is that the builders did then and still do go to CMHC to get public financing for the houses, the apartments, even the shopping centres that they build; even today.

So again private enterprise does not supply the bulk of the funds. It is, again, government services which supply these funds.

When it comes to shoddy buildings, so often, for some reason or other, the government has had to intervene in setting up building codes because too many builders were putting up shoddy houses. I think the member will agree with me that this has been the case, and so governments again have been forced to intervene --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Of course there has been a lot of shoddy workmanship.

Mr. Young: -- and forced to set up a building code to which these men must build.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s right; there’s been a lot of shoddy workmanship.

Mr. Young: All right, sure; that’s private enterprise again.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Blame it on the unions.

Mr. Young: Now we come to another matter --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Let the record show that I am not opposed to unions.

Mr. Young: The member mentioned the Ontario Energy Corp., an energy corporation set up by the government of this province, and rightly so. We don’t quarrel with that, because we’ve been calling for this for a long time; but a better energy corporation than the one we have now in order to ensure that Ontario has enough natural gas for its consumers and industries at the end of this decade. We’ve come to the place where we realize we can no longer leave the production and distribution of energy in this country entirely to the private enterprisers, because they would not, in the first place --

Mr. Martel: We should nationalize the whole thing.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: There we are. He would nationalize everything.

Mr. Martel: I would nationalize the whole petroleum industry.

Mr. Young: All right. I’ll come to that. But again we see government interfering with the most powerful group of private enterprisers in the world, I suppose, the oil companies. They’ve seen fit in this government to interfere and to get on their backs with a certain amount of planning and regulations. And that can only increase as time goes on.

Then we come to one other matter which I want to mention --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When I mentioned government on the backs, I was talking about the backs of people. The member has confined that remark to the corporations, which isn’t right.

Mr. Young: Well after all, the people of Ontario don’t want more government either; I presume that means individually or collectively.

Mr. Lawlor: Corporations are on the backs of people.

Mr. Young: When you get on to the backs of the corporations, then you’re talking about socialism. The member doesn’t object to that, I take it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The NDP wants to regulate human behaviour to the nth degree.

An hon. member: Oh come off it.

Mr. Martel: There’s only one thing the members opposite haven’t passed. Know what it is?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the member for Yorkview continue? Perhaps if he faced this way it might be more appropriate.

Mr. Young: I’m coming pretty close to the end of this particular illustration which I’m trying to show, Mr. Speaker. He mentions this:

“Now let’s mention consumer protection and legislation that has been developed to assist the unwary, the consumer, the ordinary citizen who has to purchase products. The Ontario Business Practices Act is designed to remove deceptive and false business practices. And some of the Ontario business practices which were considered and are now covered” --

An hon. member: Where have all the Tories gone?

Mr. Young: “The selling of a consumer product and informing him that services and parts are available when they are not.”

Well with so many interruptions it was pretty hard for the hon. member to get the reason into this --

Mr. Lawlor: The Tories scotched that.

Mr. Young: What he was getting at is that we have had to interfere very markedly with the free enterprise system because the free enterprise system was rooking us right and left.

Mr. Martel: We found that out Thursday afternoon, didn’t we?

Mr. Young: That’s right. So to protect the consumer we’ve had to intervene in that particular way.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: One can blame the system, but it’s the people who make the system.

Mr. Martel: It’s the people at the top who make it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We’re talking about people in every walk of life at all levels.

Mr. Samis: Who controls the system?

Mr. Young: All I wished to illustrate, Mr. Speaker, was that while the member was lauding the free enterprise system, it’s clear that the free enterprise system had to be interfered with by government in order to achieve progress, and that he himself was boasting about the achievements of this government.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s perfectly right.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Does the member agree with that?

Mr. Martel: That’s a socialist viewpoint.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to come to a couple of myths that we heard in the speech last week. One was this matter which I just spoke about -- progress. You know, I want to emphasize again that progress for society has come at the very point where the public has intervened in order to channel the goods which the private enterprisers produce into socially useful purposes. I remember a description of 1929, Mr. Speaker; it is a very apt description. It was this: The hive is filled and the bees are fired. Now that is happening today again. The hive is being filled, we are getting a surplus of goods and the people who produce them are being fired again.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s not accurate though. There was a lot of business going out of this country.

Mr. Young: All right. There is enough truth in this. When the bees are fired, of course, then somebody who has control of the hive is eating the honey; but the little businessman does have trouble at that point because of a lack of purchasing power. Right? And that’s exactly what the member was saying the other day, and I agree with him.

An hon. member: He was having real problems the other day.

Mr. Carruthers: The bees are in private enterprise.

Mr. Young: Now the member said this about housing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: I am going to come to the small businessman. I am going to do that in a few minutes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They have to work 18 hours a day. The member wouldn’t want to nationalize them would you?

Mr. Young: Now the member says this:

“These are very difficult times indeed but it’s [the government] doing everything possible to facilitate people to own their own homes. Our philosophy is that it is important that the people of the province have a vested interest in the province. That’s important, that they own something, which is contrary to the socialist philosophy that the state should own everything.”

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the great myths that is being perpetrated by this member and others -- that the average guy, under this kind of a system and this kind of a government, can own his own house. You see, the fact is over the last two or three years that the prices of single family homes have doubled -- they have gone up to the point.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): What has caused that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Young: I am saying the system works this way.

Mr. Wardle: But what has caused it?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: But as far as ownership is concerned his own members don’t want people to own the land; the NDP want the government to own it and to rent it to the people. Ask the member for Ottawa and the islands.

Mr. Young: We have the whole matter of speculation in land and in housing which this government -- and I give it some credit -- has tried to stop --

Mr. Mattel: Oh, not very hard though.

Mr. Young: -- with some degree of success, but it has left out the commercial and other aspects, which are vital if we are going to stop this kind of speculation.

Also more and more today our people are being hived into apartments. That’s the way it is happening. That’s the way the policies of this kind of government work. The people are not only not owning their own homes, but they are going into apartments, and so this myth about --

An hon. member: What does the hon. member suggest?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: This government passed condominium legislation so they could own their own homes.

Mr. Young: Okay, agreed.

Mr. Martel: Own their own apartment, not their own home.

Mr. Young: A strange thing this -- how this government is going into co-operative ownership, which is taking the ownership out of the hands of the apartment owners and putting it in the hands of the people. That is good, we agree with that. But that is not free enterprise.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: This speech will come back to haunt the member, he is agreeing with private ownership. He should watch he doesn’t get chastised by his party hierarchy.

Mr. Wardle: Wait until his leader reads it tomorrow.

Mr. G. Nixon: He will be drummed out.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He will be joining us pretty soon.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention another matter which the gentleman mentioned the other day, and that is small business. I think all of us are concerned about the plight of small business today.

Over the weekend I had the privilege of meeting with a group of service station operators, small businessmen, who are trying their best to make their private enterprise system work as far as they can. But we have today -- and this has been brought up time after time in this House by various members in this House, and it wasn’t confined entirely to this party -- we have a situation where the service station operators are today competing with each other for business.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Young: All right, but that competition only goes to the extent of pumping the gas or getting the materials out. The oil companies lay down the laws of competition and the rules of competition for these people -- how they can compete. The oil companies deliver the oil and the gas to them.

Mr. Carruthers: Risk capital.

Mr. Martel: Risk capital!

Mr. Young: Until just before this last increase took place between seven major oil companies, the wholesale price ranged all the way --

Mr. Carruthers: Why doesn’t the NDP nationalize the potash industry in Saskatchewan?

Mr. Martel: We even developed it.

Mr. Carruthers: I’ll tell them why.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Tell them.

Mr. Martel: Why?

Mr. Young: All right. We’ll get the speech later.

Mr. Martel: I can hardly wait.

Mr. Carruthers: I’ll let the member know.

Mr. Young: The wholesale price of gasoline pumped into the service station tanks ranged all the way -- and this is seven companies -- from 57.5 cents to 57.8 cents. That’s real competition -- three-tenths of one cent difference in the seven of them. In other words, they delivered the gas at that price. Up to that point there was no competition among the oil companies.

Mr. Martel: Comparing the costs of such things.

An hon. member: That’s sharpening their pencils.

Mr. Young: That sure is. That’s getting together.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: How about the price of milk and bread?

Mr. Martel: If that’s not collusion, what do you call it?

Mr. Young: Imperial Oil’s profit, just announced, was $290 million for 1974, which was up 28 per cent over 1973 --

Mr. Carruthers: What are they going to do with the money?

Mr. Haggerty: That’s what the public would like to know.

Mr. Young: -- and 75 per cent above 1972, and 1972 was the highest in the history of the company.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Is that in terms of dollars?

Mr. Young: Now, these people who have that kind of profit the other day came along and said to me and to all of us, “You’re going to pay 2.2 cents more per gallon for heating oil and for gasoline.”

Mr. Carruthers: What are they going to do with the profits?

Mr. Young: My question is, if they’re that profitable why do they need to take another two cents, 2.5 cents or three cents?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The federal government takes away most of the profit.

Mr. Lawlor: Not after depletion allowances. Not after the handouts the member’s government gives them.

Mr. Young: When the companies now dump that gasoline at the higher price into a service station tank they say to the service station operator, “You sell at the old price.”

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Oh no, they don’t. Not where I buy.

Mr. Young: They want them to, but all of them don’t. Some of them are independent. They also deliver gasoline to other independents at the same price or lower. In other words, very often an independent can buy from Imperial Oil or Texaco, gasoline at a lower price than the companies wholesale to their own service station operators. If the member calls that fair competition, I don’t know where it is.

Then if the stations are going to sell at a smaller margin on gas -- and sometimes the companies will give the operators some assistance to lower their price -- they say; “Make it up in other items -- tires, batteries, service, repairs.”

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member may be an expert on gas but let’s hear about bread and milk.

Mr. Young: Then they came along the other day and they say to the service station operators, “We’re going to put your rent up from six per cent of gross” -- I have it here, the clipping:

“Under the current lease, Imperial charges lessees one cent for each gallon of gasoline sold plus six per cent of gross revenues from service and parts. He said the new formula means monthly rents will range from 11 per cent to 15 per cent, depending on the size of the station and the gross margin on gasoline and auto part sales, plus 11 per cent to 15 per cent of labour billings.”

That’s interesting, because what the service station operators are now faced with is a jump from six per cent to 15 per cent of gross sales and labour billings. So they tell me that the only way they’re going to make it go is to raise, first of all, the price of their tires, batteries, parts and all the rest of it. At the same time they’re going to have to raise the rate of labour which they charge the customer from about $14, which is the present current rate, to $18 to $20. They point out that this means not only does Imperial Oil get the 15 per cent of the present amount but it will get the 15 per cent of the increase. So if labour prices go up to $18 they get 15 per cent of $18 instead of 15 per cent of $14. So you have a bigger slice.

What is happening is a simple thing. People are driving cars more. They’re not buying as many new cars as they were. They’re sending old ones in for repairs so the repair bays are busy these days and it’s very difficult, I’m told, to get a space in a repair bay. Repairs are going up by leaps and bounds. Not only are the automobile companies raising the price of spare parts to these people, but they themselves now are being forced to raise the price of spare parts and price of labour. The oil companies are now seeing the lucrative market and moving right in to cash in on it at the expense of the service station operator.

If the price of labour goes up then, of course, the working man gets it in the neck again.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: How does the working man get it in the neck if the cost of oil goes up?

Mr. Young: He gets it because he’s blamed for the high cost of labour. He’s getting perhaps $6 or $7 an hour, and now the charge will perhaps be $18. Then we blame labour for inflation.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: What about the little guy who can’t earn that kind of money?

Mr. Young: More than this, I want just to simply outline two or three things that the service station operator is up against, Mr. Speaker, with your permission.

First of all, some of them are being forced to discount prices to meet competition of other companies. He gets a smaller profit margin, but he’s told by the company that the lower price will mean bigger gallonage, and they will also help him with a reduction of one or two cents. But when he has to sell at the discount price, then he himself has to take part of that loss.

But worse still, all along the line there are company-operated service stations, operated right to the retail level. And so the little fellow, who is a lessee of Imperial Oil, for instance, has to compete with the Imperial Oil station which is selling directly to the customer and making profits at both the wholesale and the retail levels -- and very often they can then afford to cut the retail just a bit. So he’s up against that.

The third thing he is now up against is self-service. Self-serve stations are proliferating right across this province, and they are all run by the companies themselves. Again, the company is competing in the self-service industry with its own lessee down the street and putting him out of business. So the self-serve business today is creating considerable casualties in the lessee field.

So we have a price jungle today. We are told gas is becoming more plentiful and there is a surplus of gasoline everywhere. And with that surplus, as I again point out, Imperial and the other companies saw fit to raise the price of gasoline, and particularly the price of fuel oil for homes everywhere. In spite of the surplus, in spite of the profits they have done this.

Mr. Lawlor: What a joke.

Mr. Young: So we have a price jungle. For example, take a look at prices on Highway 400. A man who made a survey on Saturday said that on 400 and 401 -- in a captive market area where people had to turn in and buy gas -- the price was 72.9 cents. But at a BP station just off 400 on Highway 89, the price was 65.9 cents.

All over this city and all over this province, prices are juggled and the service station operator is at the mercy of the companies that are trying to unload surplus gas. They are finding themselves --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He charges whatever the market will bear.

Mr. Young: The lessee?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The service station operator maximizes his profits.

Mr. Young: All right, if he can.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is the object of the exercise.

Mr. Young: But if somebody next door to him with another gas company is being subsidized to cut the gas price down, he is then in trouble and he’s out of business.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If you have a price war you are into something else again.

Mr. Young: That’s right. I’m simply presenting a situation in which so many of these small businessmen find themselves today.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member should not confine himself solely to lessees of service stations.

Mr. Young: I’m talking about this group of small businessmen -- and we haven’t time to go over them all.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I am concerned about more than the lessee of the service station.

Mr. Young: If you look at the figures last week, you find that small businesses are going bankrupt at a very large rate right now because of the layoffs, because of the lack of purchasing power, Mr. Speaker. These people, mom and pop stores in many cases, are finding it very very difficult to carry on.

What I’m saying is that small business is pretty well controlled today -- controlled by the big industries. At the small mom and pop stores their prices are set at the wholesale level and they’ve got to get their margin there. The prices of the lessee in the service station are also controlled by the oil monopoly. Or take what you will -- the guy who is selling farm machinery, whosoever it is, is still controlled at the wholesale level and at the wholesale level competition has virtually disappeared. We used to depend on competition. We used to depend on competition to keep prices down, but the competitive factor has all but disappeared from the face of this country and from the face of the earth.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Only when industry reaches the size of government will competition go down, so what would happen if the state owned all of the industry?

Mr. Young: When industry reaches the size of government, then of course we have to have some countervailing forces, and when industry can get together and dictate prices as they have been recently then, of course, government must step in with that countervailing force. That’s the way it is.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: With anti-trust legislation, combines legislation and so on.

Mr. Young: In the oil and gas industry today we have no way of knowing how much oil and how much gas is available under the ground. Time after time, since 1914, when the oil companies said to Britain and France, “Your navies need our oil and oil is so scarce that we think the next five years will see the end of the oil in the world,” they jacked the price up to the British navy and to the French navy, and, of course, to everybody else. Then when the war was over, of course, we were swimming in the sea of oil. A few years ago, we were told in Canada that we had enough oil and gas to last us for a century or more. That was the time when oil companies in the United States wanted us to export gas and oil to the United States. We were cut off from exporting oil for a while and we were told, “We’ll take your oil if you let us have your gas,” in a long-term business. We didn’t know how much oil and gas we had, except the companies said we had all that stuff under ground, all these reserves.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is there but you have to get it out.

Mr. Young: They said nothing about that. Then suddenly, a year or so ago, we are told that there is a scarcity, that prices have got to go up so we can drill for more. We heard nothing about that scarcity until we needed a price increase for the oil companies. So we haven’t any competition really. What is needed today, as far as the oil companies are concerned, is exactly what the member for Sudbury East said some time ago -- and we have advocated this -- we need to take over at least one of the major oil companies.

Mr. Martel: I’d take them all.

Mr. Young: Well, in any case, let’s start with one.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: His colleague says he would take them all.

Mr. Young: This way we will know, first of all, what the margin is, what the operating costs are, and we’ll know what the reserves of oil and gas are underground and whether or not more money is needed. The startling thing is that the oil companies were doing more drilling in Canada when oil was less than $2 a barrel than they are doing right now, at $6.50. It’s a strange thing.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He is going to take one over to find out what it is all about? That’s what he is saying. One would think he knew what it was all about, the way he is talking.

Mr. Young: All right. I am saying that we must bring part of this industry under public ownership and control so that we can then run it and we can not only know these things but then we can afford to make available to the Canadian people the products of this industry at a reasonable price -- and we will know it’s a reasonable price.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: They are Simple Simons over there.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Make everybody a civil servant.

Mr. Martel: What about the $3 billion ripoff last year?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Could we have one person making --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Could we have one person making a speech and would he address the Chair and face in this direction please?

Mr. Martel: A $3 million ripoff; it was proved last year.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting afternoon as far as I am concerned. We are getting some reaction and it’s rather a healthy reaction and --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mostly from his colleagues who want to take over more than the member does.

Mr. Speaker: My request isn’t being followed. Would the member please address his remarks and the other members remain quiet?

Mr. Young: All right. I am going to finish this part of my address very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to use another illustration in this whole field of the sheer lack of competitive effort in the so-called free enterprise system. We have seen how motor cars have escalated in price over the past few years, partly because of the demand for safety and pollution controls. Every time a safety device or pollution control is put on, it would knock the cost. We never did know what the cost was except we did get a printout from Ford back in 1966 when this process started; we found what the markup was in some of the things and it was phenomenal.

The blame for the escalation was often put on the safety and pollution devices. Also, the cars grew in size, until finally people began to look at the imports and the smaller cars came in. Then, as the motor car industry went into the small car business, it escalated the price of the smaller cars until we got a Buick price, almost, on a Pinto.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Look at the price of sugar and the price of bread.

Mr. Young: Exactly, that is what I am saying to members. The price of sugar is in exactly the same category; a combine, which is now under investigation, had got together to raise the price, without mercy, on the people.

I want to point out this: When the competition really hit, when people stopped buying both sugar and motor cars, what happened? It wasn’t a case of competition at that point.

It was a case, first of all in the case of motor cars, that a bonus was given if one bought a certain car; a bonus. Now the price remains the same -- they don’t drop that -- but a bonus is given. All the companies get together and decide they are going to keep the list price the way it is. Also, maybe, by cutting off certain of the so-called options that were built in over the last few years, they can lighten that car and get it down to the place where they can at least drop the price for those things. But price maintenance must be there.

When it comes to sugar, we saw how the combines raised the price and the government in Ottawa began to investigate.

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): What happens if they don’t sell those cars? They are up now.

Mr. Young: That is my point. The competition isn’t there any longer. The companies have not competed. Ordinarily, years and years ago, they would have lowered the price and sold the cars. They don’t any more.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Does the member think they can sell the cars by reducing the price.

Mr. Young: They believe that by advertising and manipulation they can get the cars moved out. If they don’t, they drop the men who make the cars. That’s the problem.

When it came to sugar Mr. Speaker, what we got was a combine raising sugar prices to the place where they finally found that people would no longer buy. Then the price starts back in a managed way so that the sugar price is maintained and they’ll find the point at which people are going to start to buy again. It will not come back to the former level at which they were making plenty of money -- or even twice that -- but they’re going to keep it at the managed level. Competition is gone.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Tell me something that is not going up in price.

Mr. Young: All right. What I am saying is that when we talk about the free enterprise system and competition, of course we’re just whistling in the dark.

Mr. Lawlor: Everything is going up in price because of what is called maximization of profits.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The unions are competing all the time for wages.

Mr. Young: What I am saying is that as the power of the combines grow, governments must move in, as we said a few minutes ago, with countervailing force to prevent those combines from taking the people for a complete ride.

I want to quote for the members’ benefit a statement made by one of the ministers of the Crown, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) to the Business Press Editors Association on Feb. 20, 1975. He said:

“In a recent speech my predecessor and colleague made the following statement: ‘I’m going to predict increased public involvement in areas that historically have been the preserve of the private sector and I’m going to state right now that this will happen because it is unavoidable. The developing realities of our society demand it. The private sector was not prepared to put up all the necessary capital and so the Syncrude project had to be partially financed by the government, even though a company had already gone in to the tar sands and is now making money there [strangely enough].

“‘It might be useful to reflect on the fact that Ontario broke the trail in the direction of public power in the first decade of this century and today the generation and distribution of power by the public sector is the norm rather than the exception. The leading British oil company and the leading German oil company both are mixed public-private enterprises. The entire coal industry of Britain and France is owned by the public. The German coal industry is for all practical purposes also publicly owned. The leading steel industry in Italy is publicly owned. The entire steel industry in Britain is publicly owned.’”

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I don’t think they are bragging about that.

Mr. Young: Quoting:

“To varying degrees the same is true in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. The fact is that private industry had gone bankrupt and had refused to operate. It wasn’t giving Britain the steel it needed and the other countries too.”

Mr. Lawlor: Like Dominion Coal in the Maritimes.

Mr. Young: Quoting:

“In the aluminum industry,” and this is interesting “there are important government-owned or mixed-ownership aluminum companies in Germany, Norway, Austria, Spain and Italy.”

He went on to say this:

“I am not saying that this interlocking of business and government is good or bad. I am saying it is happening in the industrial countries of the world and seems to be happening at an increasing rate, and it frequently appears to be a pragmatic response to realities rather than a response to doctrinaire predisposition or government opportunism.

“In the United States, the financial problems of some of the big railroads resulted in the creation of Conrail, which is mixed public-private in the railbusiness [even that bastion of private enterprise] after the rail industry had gone.

“In Canada, we have opted for a national railway, a national airline and public power, to name a few. Now Syncrude is joint public-private. I repeat that I have no disposition to argue if this is a good thing or a bad thing. [He is not going to put himself on record in this way], but it exists -- ”

Mr. Lawlor: It is a good thing.

Mr. Young: He went on:

“It is happening in other countries on a relatively grand scale and seems to be gaining some momentum here. This we can all observe. Today I am doing nothing more than making it explicit. There is little purpose in pretending that reality does not exist.”

That, of course, is the very thing that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox was doing -- he was pretending that reality does not exist.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Oh, no.

Mr. Young: He was going aboard the socialists, so called, lauding free enterprise and ignoring the fact that the very examples that he was talking about were the examples where government does interfere with private enterprise. It has to interfere for the good of society.

Mr. Lawlor: He is the victim of his own ideology.

Mr. Young: Then again the difference between his philosophy and our philosophy would be the extent and the speed to which that interference should take place. That’s all.

Mr. Turner: That is an oversimplification.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, my agreement with the hon. House leader was that when I reached this particular point in the debate this afternoon, I could adjourn the debate and continue tomorrow.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, that is, of course, following the speech of the member’s leader.

Mr. Young: All right.

Mr. Young moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5:50 o’clock, p.m.