Journal des débats 1975-mars-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in introducing to the House a group of grade 7 and 8 pupils from Parklawn Public School in Humber riding who are sitting in the east gallery. These girls are members of the 146th Girl Guide Company and are accompanied by Mrs. Friesen.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, last evening during the remarks by the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Was he speaking last night?

Mr. Breithaupt: -- I noted at page 344-2 in the report of Hansard some comments which perhaps were not heard by certain members at the time they were made due to some confusion and noise within the chamber. At that point, the hon. member said, “There are those in the opposition benches who were with Communist organizations which I had to take on.” And then he went on with other remarks.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks made cast a rather slanderous comment on those of us in the opposition, and I would ask that you, as a guardian of our honour in this particular circumstance, would require the member either to state exactly whom he meant or to withdraw his remarks.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Very good.

Mr. Speaker: I will take that under advisement.

Mr. Bullbrook: And I represent --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): You will take that under advisement?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The Speaker is not a cabinet minister yet.

Mr. Speaker: I see the hon. member referred to is not in the House so there cannot be anything done at the moment.

Mr. Deans: He is in the House. On a point of order, the hon. member referred to is in the House. He is standing there.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): He is not in his seat.

Mr. Deans: It might be useful if he could take his seat and we could deal with it now.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not familiar with the statement. Perhaps the hon. member may wish to make a remark. We’ll give him that opportunity.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let the member for Scarborough Centre go ahead and say something.

Mr. Bullbrook: Go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. member for Scarborough Centre hear the hon. member for Kitchener?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): No, I did not.

Mr. Speaker: Would you care to repeat your point of personal privilege?

Mr. Breithaupt: I have forwarded to you the draft page of Hansard, and perhaps if you might return it to me I would again read into the record the comments which could not perhaps be heard due to certain noise at the time, and therefore could not be referred to at that point for the benefit of the Speaker at the time.

The comments reported on page 344-2 of the draft Hansard for last evening, 8:45 to 8:50 p.m., are reported as follows. They are remarks of the member for Scarborough Centre:

“Mr. Speaker, there are those in the opposition benches who were with Communist organizations which I had to take on but --”

And then there were other interjections. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that as the guardian of our privileges you require the member to either name the persons to whom he was referring, or that you require him to withdraw these comments which are offensive to many of us in the opposition benches.

Mr. Bullbrook: We know who he referred to.

Mr. Drea: Well Mr. Speaker, I would say the little remark that was given there by the member for Sarnia was really uncalled for.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t even hear it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, at that particular time -- and I suppose I could take a great deal of time this afternoon and I would justify exactly what I had in my mind last night.

Mr. Deans: Please do. I think that is what is being asked of the member.

Mr. Drea: Well, I certainly made it very plain to the member --

An hon. member: Thanks very much.

Mr. Drea: -- that it didn’t refer to him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who? The member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon)?

Mr. Drea: No, I am talking to the Liberal’s deputy leader, my friend.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for York Centre is not a Communist.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) wasn’t even here last night. It would have been awfully nice if he had been here, but he wasn’t here last night.

Mr. Bullbrook: If it is not the member for York Centre, who is it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It wasn’t the member for Kent (Mr. Spence) was it?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon. member, if he has some remarks to make, please make them so we can get on with the business of the House?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of provocation last night. It was between another member of the House and myself. In the past, he and I have dealt with various organizations. Because of the provocation, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I talked a little bit too strongly. It is only in regards to one other member of the House.

Some hon. members: Who? Who?

Mr. Drea: Well, Mr. Speaker, they ask who. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I lost my temper last night.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He was going to be so calm.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there are very few times on which I lose my temper.

Mr. Roy: And I wasn’t even here.

Mr. Lawlor: When did he keep it?

Mr. Drea: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that brings about the kind of remark and the kind of chuckle we could expect. I am trying to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there was some provocation. That is no excuse on my behalf.

Mr. Speaker, the particular remarks the deputy leader of the Liberal Party has brought to my attention, I will very graciously and very apologetically withdraw.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): The hon. member has just said in the course of his remarks that he was only referring to one member, if I heard him correctly. Should we not have this member either --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member has withdrawn the remarks he made last night.

Statements by the ministry.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) was asking a question about Algonquin College, and I have a statement to make today in connection with that.

On Jan. 2, 1975, the chairman of the board of governors of Algonquin College and I agreed on the arrangements to be made to assess the situation at the college. We agreed that this report on the college would be presented jointly to us. The assessment of Algonquin was carried out in January and February by an independent study team.

Mr. Roy: I can’t hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: At the beginning of March, I arranged with Mr. Thayer, chairman of the board of governors, to meet with him and the board on March 12 for a presentation of the study team’s findings.

On March 12 I went to Ottawa for that presentation. The board seemed quite receptive to the report, and at the end of the presentation we wrote a joint press release which indicated:

There is no real deficit at Algonquin College when the capital replacement fund is taken into account;

The large capital replacement fund held in reserve out of operating funds is unduly large; and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities will undertake to provide clearer guidelines on this matter for the future;

There should be a plan to stabilize programmes, students and faculty so that the college can make operational adjustments, which may include a minor reduction in personnel for 1975-1976;

There is immediate need for improvement in internal financial management and reporting, together with other measures to assure a balanced approach in the administration of the colleges; and

The board of governors must emphasize its role as the college’s policy-making body.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): We can’t hear, Mr. Speaker. There is too much noise.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I also stated there would be no additional funds above those already announced for the colleges for the 1975-1976 fiscal year.

The board and I agreed that our first task was to digest the report thoroughly -- I might mention that it is about 115 pages -- and then decide on a plan of action.

Mr. Thayer, chairman of the board, called me the next morning and told me the board had agreed to meet during the first week of April -- during the first weekend in April, I believe -- to decide on a plan of action to deal with this and some other matters, and that he would not want the report released until after this meeting.

He told me he would be in touch with me shortly after the meeting, and at present I am waiting to hear from him; I expect that will be during the week after next.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the recent Throne Speech indicated this government’s commitment to encouraging adequate, affordable housing for all Ontario residents. Further to that, I am pleased today to announce two major new initiatives under the Ontario Housing Action Programme.

The provincial government has approved an $8.8-million loan to the regional municipality of Halton to expand the city of Burlington Skyway pollution control centre. This expansion, at a total cost of $17.5 million, will more than double the centre’s present sewage treatment capacity. This will allow construction of at least 11,360 new housing units over the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, this pace of development has already been approved by resolutions of the regional and area municipal councils. Burlington is also prepared to enter into an agreement with my ministry which will further define the nature and location of these new units.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce a $1.31 million OHAP loan to the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. This loan will pay part of the cost of storm and sanitary sewers for new development in Stoney Creek.

The new sewers will allow construction of 1,385 units in the second stage of the Albion Estates development. These units are covered by OHAP agreements with Carma Developers Ontario Ltd., the town of Stoney Creek and my ministry. In stage two, 45 per cent of the units will be for families earning less than $20,000 per year.

Mr. Deans: What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It will also service a portion of the Saltfleet town centre and commercial development, and a possible 500-unit highrise apartment. In addition, it will provide for servicing a potential 1,735 units in the area.

The terms of repayment follow the OHAP formula, which is that the loan is interest free and repayment of the principal is in 15 annual instalments, beginning thee years from the date the loan is received. These terms ensure the new facility will not be a burden to existing taxpayers in the area.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to express my appreciation to the regional municipalities of Halton and Hamilton-Wentworth, and to the area municipalities of Burlington and Stoney Creek, for their very willing responsiveness to the housing needs of the people of Ontario. I look forward to continuing my consultations with them in the future. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am advised by the hon. Michael Starr, chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, that the review of the board’s policy concerning lung cancer in asbestos workers, which was discussed at the recent meeting of the standing committee on resources development, is almost complete.

Several eminent specialists, including Prof. A. C. Ritchie, professor of pathology at the University of Toronto; Prof. R. W. Morgan, chairman of the faculty of preventive medicine at the University of Toronto, and others, have been researching this complex subject, including the research studies by others such as Dr. Selikoff of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.

While all of the reports are not yet complete, it would appear that based on extrapolative data arising out of the recent research, the balance of probabilities has shifted. Lung cancer in the presence of asbestos particles, but in the absence of asbestosis, may now be considered as occupational in origin within the revised exposures and other criteria. The revised criteria are currently being developed and a number of claims previously disallowed will be reopened by the board for review as quickly as possible.

Mr. Deans: What does that mean?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): How come the Tories didn’t applaud that one?

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The Leader of the Opposition.

BURLINGTON BAY SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Housing further to his statement. He referred specifically to the Skyway sewage treatment facility. Is the minister aware that for 90 days last year that sewage treatment facility was dumping raw sewage into the bay? Can the minister indicate how long it will be, let’s say, seriously under the requirements, since there has now been a commitment to spend some additional money on it? Will it be five years during which time it will still be, let’s say, inadequate for the requirements as they presently are, without having to cope with the additional housing that has been announced today?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I think this question should go to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman). But I would reply that as far as I am concerned, what we are doing in the Ministry of Housing is to provide funding so the sewage capacity can be expanded and look after the problems in that particular area. We recognize that if we have to have more housing we have to have adequate funding, which the municipalities did not have.

I am not in a position to say to the member that there cannot be any housing added at the present time. I would like to refer to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment for that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to direct the question to the Minister of the Environment having to do with the Skyway pollution control centre, since, as I have said, it is already allowing inadequately treated sewage, if not raw sewage, to be spilled into the harbour there. What is the timetable, since the minister in his statement is indicating there will be an expansion of the housing being served by that facility?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, going by memory I believe there was some modification made to the plant. The member will find the overflow is now taken care of and the plant is going to be expanded. I am not sure whether tenders have been called or are going to be called, but it is not very far away. There were some modifications made to clear up the situation that the member was talking about and I don’t think he will find there is any overage in 1975.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question: Since the information available to me was reported in the Hamilton Spectator of Feb. 25, 1975, and it indicates the treatment plant is so overburdened that millions of gallons of sewage entered Burlington Bay on more than 90 days last year, that would indicate the problem was certainly in existence a few weeks ago.

Hon. W. Newman: What I just finished saying was there were some modifications made to the plant, which were completed late in the year, to pick up this problem that was in existence. The plant is to be expanded to cope with the present growth and the future growth of the area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you will permit a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, would the minister give us a further report on that, since there seems to be some doubt as to whether in 1975 “millions of gallons of sewage were dumped into the bay,” and it seems strange to predicate another housing announcement of the type we have just had on a facility that is already overburdened?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

HOUSING ACTION PROGRAMME POLICY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a further question to the minister. Is the minister going to adjust his policy so that announcements based on OHAP can be made regarding other areas of the province that do not come under regional government facilities? Is the minister satisfied that his other initiatives, so called, make up for the fact that the areas without regional government apparently are outside the purview of OHAP, which has been the basis, if not the building of houses, of recent press releases and announcement by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m not entirely satisfied that OHAP as it presently exists will be the programme for the future. I’ve had requests from other area municipalities which are not within regional government jurisdiction and I don’t believe that is the guideline. What we have endeavoured to do through OHAP is to provide housing in areas of low vacancy rates or housing where we deem it very necessary for home ownership. Now we’ll have the limited dividend and home ownership, not necessarily related to regional governments but related to the areas where we have a need for housing. For instance, in Sarnia, which I visited last week with my colleague the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), we discussed the feasibility of that area being designated as an OHAP area. We have other areas which may need to be designated and I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Did the minister enjoy his trip to Sarnia?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I did, sir.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would also like to ask the same minister to explain why --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Cochrane South has a supplementary.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Yes. I wonder if the minister is proposing to designate the Timmins area as one of those areas where a great housing need exists, in view of the announcement by Texasgulf of its major expansion programme? Is he intending to designate Timmins or will he take a close look at the acute need that now has arisen in that community?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to assure the hon. member I will look at the requirements of that municipality. I have not, to my knowledge, received a definite request for housing, whether it relates to OHAP, or HOME, AHOP or whatever it may be. Certainly if the member will relate to his own municipality and have them send me a request we’ll look into it, I can assure him, at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a related matter, how can the Minister of Housing justify the present policy which applies these strictures on those areas which are not regionalized having to do with housing and the availability of land under the control of Ontario Housing Corp.? Wouldn’t the minister agree that in the minds, at least of those people who pay taxes in areas not regionalized this amounts to the grossest kind of blackmail which is intended by the minister to force them into accepting the additional expenses and inconvenience of regional government?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Leader of the Opposition has failed to recognize there are other programmes which the Ontario government implements in rural municipalities or in areas which are not under any form of regional government whatsoever. We have the Ontario Home Renewal programme. I’ll be making a statement in the House tomorrow, I expect, which will show him very fully that many municipalities have taken advantage of this particular programme. Approximately $10 million worth of housing stock is being preserved. We also have our HOME programme which relates to home ownership and to rent geared to income so there is more than one programme. There are several programmes which would relate to areas not under regional government jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. B. F. Nixon: A supplementary on the minister’s answer: Since OHAP, which at the present time is the spearhead of the initiative of the housing ministry does not apply to areas that are not regionalized, surely the minister must see that this is seen to be unfair by those citizens who don’t even have an opportunity to negotiate on that basis? Is he not also aware that in the case of the 1,000 acres owned by Ontario Housing to the, west of Brantford, the reason given for not developing those lands is that Brantford and Brant county have not seen fit to move toward a regional government? I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that amounts to political blackmail.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the case is not as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said. We have not indicated to the Ontario Housing Corp. through the Ministry of Housing that we haven’t developed the 1,000 acres in the Brantford area -- or the Leader of the Opposition’s particular area -- because it doesn’t belong to regional government. That is absolutely false.

Mr. Roy: The minister should be familiar with dirty tricks.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why hasn’t the minister developed it then?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have asked the municipalities involved at least to develop a housing policy which we are willing to fund and we will fund. We have put money into his area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is not my area.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is a little bit of the Leader of the Opposition’s area, if I remember correctly. It may not be in the future, but right now it’s some of his area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, as a matter of fact -- on a point of order -- the minister is exactly wrong. It is not mine but it will be mine in the future.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The Leader of the Opposition is exactly wrong.

TAY TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT FREEZE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing to explain his action in putting a freeze on development in Tay township, since that very township has entered into a very expensive review of its planning procedures. On a basis of what was approved by the Ministry of Housing or his planning officials, who have allegiance to other ministers from time to time, they have followed their instructions, and still the minister moves in and without any consultation freezes the township. What is going on here?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, again in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, this is a matter that was given very careful consideration by my ministry and by myself. The freeze was requested by the planning board in that area because they were not in agreement with some of the severances that have been processed in the last few months, especially in Tay township. What I have said to the member for the area and to the people that are directly involved is that we will lift the freeze as soon as we have proper planning controls; and I’m quite willing to do that immediately.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: The implication then is that the bylaws in Tay township are unacceptable to the centralized planners who advise the Minister of Housing, and he therefore froze it. Is that right? They have bylaws and they’ve spent money on planning, but because the minister doesn’t like it, he has frozen the township, right?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not right. I’m sorry if I gave that inference. The request came from the local people.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the planning board.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: From the local planning board which has the responsibility for planning in that area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The elected council are also local people.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think it is incumbent upon my ministry and upon myself to ensure we have planning principles established throughout all of Ontario. As long as I’m the Minister of Housing, I’m going to do that. When I put a freeze on, it’s on the condition the local municipality ensures it plans the same as we do throughout all Ontario. When they’ve done that, I’ll lift the freeze.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister is so concerned with doing what the local people want, is he aware that the elected council, representing the local people in the township of Tay, has passed a resolution condemning the actions of the Ministry of Housing in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware the council passed the resolution. But I say to all the hon. members here that I think it is about time the local people in any municipality decide on their priorities, whether they want to have good planning or whether they want to have development haphazardly.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if he would get us a report on the commitment the province still has in financing the research and development of the magnetic levitation train, that we really haven’t heard about in this House for some months.

Mr. Roy: A good question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the minister recall assuring the House that there would be a three-month review of our commitment and a report given to the House? Is he aware that his colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and also his employee, the president, I guess, of the Urban Transit Development Corp., have both stated they continue to have confidence in the programme and that it continues to be under research and development?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly recall the commitment I’ve made and I intend to honour that commitment. I will have a full report to make to the House very shortly, and I’ll let members have all of the details.

Mr. Roy: Which day is the minister scheduled for that goodie?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to reply to another portion of the question asked yesterday concerning two sums of money, the $3.4 million the hon. member asked about concerning the Canada Systems Group and also an amount of money owed to Spar Aerospace of $100,000. I’d like to advise the House that I’ve been informed by the chairman of the board of the Krauss-Maffei company that the outstanding claims have been settled with the subcontractors and no amounts remain outstanding at this time. I will repeat again that I certainly will have that report very shortly with all of the detail necessary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Have we paid the bill for cutting down the trees at the Exhibition? Weren’t there $1 million worth of trees cut down?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m afraid that I can’t accept the figure of $1 million, it seems to me we did have a figure in the vicinity of $52,000.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s close.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The Leader of the Opposition’s math is off again.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister going to claim that from Krauss-Maffei?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We are discussing the matter with Krauss-Maffei with a view to getting that money back, but we do intend to see that the CNE is reimbursed for that $52,000.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Besides the trees, of course, there is the concrete embedded in the ground there. Surely it is the responsibility of the ministry, or Krauss-Maffei under the direction of the ministry, to put that back the way it was. If he can put it back the way it was for less than $1 million maybe he is a miracle worker --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- maybe he can even make the trains go.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. member has had an opportunity, in his thoroughness, to read the agreement that was drawn up between ourselves and Krauss-Maffei at the termination.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They were supposed to pay for it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And if he will recall, one of the conditions was that at the expense of Krauss-Maffei the CNE site would be restored to a safe and usable condition. It does include the removal of those very items he was talking about. The only area where we have any arrangements still to be made is regarding the trees.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister confirm or deny a report that appeared some time ago that in fact the ministry’s people in Germany now are putting wheels on the Krauss-Maffei vehicles? Is that a fact or not? And if it is, isn’t the minister adopting a policy of staying with wheeled rapid transit?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably six to eight months late with his question, because that very statement was made by myself some time back.

Mr. Roy: When did the minister say they were going to put wheels on?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I said it was the intention of the OTDC, in continuing with the experimentation, to look at other methods of suspension. For the hon. member’s information, maglev is nothing more than a suspension system; and if we can make the system work without maglev and by using a wheeled vehicle for suspension purposes, not for drive, then of course we will certainly look at it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have any further questions?

The hon. member for Wentworth.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Has the member for Ottawa East heard about the wheel?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Why it is I always have to compete with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development?

I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Roy: Stick with the wheel.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member for Ottawa East should quit reading his own press releases and read someone else’s.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I have difficulty hearing the member for Wentworth.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Given that the home ownership programme now underway in the Hamilton area doesn’t provide homes for anyone earning less than $11,400 a year, given that the majority of people -- 60 per cent, I would think, or more; I haven’t got the exact figure -- earn less than that, and given that this new statement provides only 623 units of the 1,385 for people earning less than $20,000 a year, when is the minister going to bring in a programme that will provide housing for people who are working in the plants and in the offices and earning average wages in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we have that programme right now. We’ve had it for some while.

Mr. Deans: Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think it is time the hon. member and the municipalities understand that we must have their acceptance of family rent-geared-to-income housing, and that if we don’t integrate housing in Hamilton, Toronto or any other place in Ontario, then we have a problem in terms of rental accommodation.

Now we are coming out with a limited dividend, as I announced last week, of $42 million for rental accommodation, with rents to be stabilized over 15 years. We can’t do the impossible. We’ve got to have the co-operation of the members, the municipalities and the people in the municipalities to accept those who make less than $11,000; and that community acceptance has not been forthcoming as readily as I would like to see it.

Mr. Deans: Acceptance? That’s balderdash. Let me ask the minister about the Hamilton project. Can the minister explain reasonably to the House how it can be that the minimum income requirement to get into the HOME programme could have risen from approximately $8,500 in November to $11,400 in March to get into the same HOME programme? The houses cost less, the taxes are lower and yet the cost on the land is almost twice as much, and in some cases more than twice as much. Is that the result of government bungling in land purchasing?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No.

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

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Just say no.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The income requirements --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Is the member all through?

Mr. Deans: I’m just talking to the minister’s colleague.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Okay. The income requirements are related to the land value, the servicing costs, mortgage interest rates, house costs and whether or not one can keep those stable. I would say it is not very often that it will happen in any one particular area. They have increased in the area the member is talking about, certainly; they are bound to.

Mr. Deans: By $3 million in five months?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, they will increase depending on the four factors I mentioned. The member should understand that; he’s been in the housing game long enough.

Mr. Deans: Well, let me ask the minister another question with regard to his programmes in geared-to-income accommodations. How is it that the minister is prepared to establish criteria in the geared-to-income programmes that were announced on March 20 -- where they were building 200 units in the Hamilton area and a number of other units across the province -- how is it that his ministry can establish criteria for the establishment of a fair rent and also a fair rate of return, and then it can’t do likewise in the private sector, which is gouging the public day after day with rental increases that are unjustified and unwarranted?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, that is a judgment the NDP have made time and time again. There is absolutely no way that anyone can prove, in the majority of cases, that the private sector is gouging in regard to the amount of rent increases.

Mr. Deans: Has the government ever conducted a study or named a board to investigate this?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: When? Name one.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member has a very short memory, apparently. He is not able to understand that there have been very sizeable wage increases during the time there have been zero or minimum rent increases. Anywhere rent increases are controlled by government, as in British Columbia and the United States, it’s failed. Our government is saying today and will say tomorrow that supply is the answer to having rental accommodation at affordable prices.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): A supplementary: Does the Minister of Housing or his ministry have any studies which tell this government how the million or so families in the province earning less than $12,000 per annum are managing to survive in the housing market; and what kind of economies they are having to make in food and clothing and necessities like that in order to meet the cost of their shelter?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker I don’t believe I can have a study of that kind prepared overnight. I would think it might be incumbent upon the federal government to prepare a study, as a matter of fact to prove to the people of Canada that their inflationary budgets have had a very detrimental affect in regard to housing for our people.

Now, we have a study underway in relation to condominium conversion to rentals, and vice versa. We have a study going on, but it won’t be completed for some while. All I’m saying to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is that we have many people who earn less than $11,000 throughout Ontario. They’ll have housing if the Ontario government carries on as it is. We intend to have housing for all of the people.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have further questions? We’re having too many supplementaries. If any other members want to ask original questions, they may.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM

Mr. Deans: A question of the Minister of Labour with regard to his statement on the payment for asbestos disease as a result of encountering an occupational hazard. Can he explain when this process will begin? Can he tell what process will be used by the Workmen’s Compensation Board to reach all of the people who, by his own terms, have “had exposure to asbestos fibres”? The next part of the question is this: Has this ministry or the Ministry of Health, or jointly, conducted a study into the effects of asbestos on the families of the workers? And is the minister aware of the study conducted by Dr. Anderson at Mount Sinai in which he investigated 354 cases and found that in 35 per cent of the cases the asbestos carried home by the worker has affected the family of the worker to the same degree as it had affected the workers in the plant.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker -- to answer the last part first -- my ministry has not been looking at the families of the workers. But I’m sure the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) will, in due course, have some comment to make on the situation the hon. member from Wentworth has mentioned.

Now he asked earlier when this process would start, and I would hope that the examination would start in the next two or three days with the claims of which the board is aware. That would be an automatic review by the board.

I don’t want to suggest there are a great many of these claims, but there are a number the board is presently aware of and it will review its files on its own. But if there are any people who think their claim should he reviewed, I would suggest they write to the board and ask, just so that they won’t be missed. But I’m not suggesting it depends on that. The board will institute this automatically.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Might I ask the minister if it is his intention to make known by publication in newspapers that this process has been changed and that people who believe they may have come into contact with asbestos, will be given a fair hearing by the board and a reappraisal? And when is the government going to make an evaluation of the value of that particular product to the economy over and against the disastrous effects that it is having on the health of both workers and their families, and come to some reasonable conclusions?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first again, I am not so sure that the disastrous effects of asbestos properly controlled -- and I add that rider properly controlled -- are any worse than the effects of many other of the noxious substances we are dealing with in modern industries; as I say, properly controlled. I’m trying to return to the first part of the question --

Mr. Deans: How is the minister going to make it known to the public at large?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As I said earlier, sir, I don’t wish to stir up a lot of hopes that there are a good number of these cases outstanding. I don’t think there are very many so I would hesitate to advertise it widely and perhaps give members of the public an indication that there are a great number of them; they might get up their hopes falsely. There certainly will be, I assume, some publication of this today.

The board itself will be doing this automatically in all cases and it was suggested if people such as the member hear of cases, they should write to the board. I will take up with the board the matter of whether it deems it advisable that any kind of notice should appear in the newspapers.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: In those cases the minister accepts will the widows’ pensions be dated back to the time of death or are they to begin now?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I would have to reply on present board policy for that. If the policy should be changed, I assume I will be in on some discussion of that change. I don’t know what the board’s policy is in similar cases. It will be reviewed, let me say that.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Huron.

LEAD POLLUTION

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment:

Since reports before the Ontario Environmental Hearing Board on lead pollution thus far have clearly established lead as a health hazard and since the hearing board has had innumerable delays and adjournments, and on top of it all has had no power to act, will the minister intervene and take action to eliminate lead pollution by the smelting companies?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, when we first set up these hearings in Toronto, in consultation with the Minister of Health, we felt we would have a thorough hearing of the whole situation. The working group on lead -- the Minister of Health’s group -- and the Ross Robertson report were both brought before the hearing, and I think it has been a very serious hearing to this point in time.

The reason for the adjournment at this point in time is the board is waiting for some medical testing that was done, waiting to get the results finalized. That was the reason for the adjournment. I understand it is going back -- I am not exactly sure of the date -- some time in April, as soon as these tests are completed, to wind up the hearings.

In the meantime, we have been working with the companies, and the member knows I changed the regulations on emissions after the hearings started. We are also working on control orders with one of the companies right now, so the hearings are not holding up the abatement programmes which we are moving on.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: Since it is a known fact that blood lead levels rise during the summer months -- and we are approaching that time -- and since the hearings have been filled with delays, would the minister not agree that any further delay in eliminating lead pollution will cause a health hazard to the local communities and will he take some action? Did he read the March 1st report which said 80 children die annually from lead poisoning and 80 others have severe brain damage?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I think one has to be a little cautious in making statements like that. The member read it in some article. I don’t have the article with me but he will have to ask the Minister of Health as far as the medical facts are concerned. I can assure him I have had consultation with the minister on it. I have seen the Ross Robertson report; to make broad statements like that is not the right thing to do in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY GRANTS

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Acting Solicitor General: In view of the fact he supplies only $50,000 a year to the Ontario Humane Society, is the minister aware that there is a serious lack of inspection carried out by the Humane Society on complaints about cruelty to animals and this kind of thing? Will the minister make some effort to supply more money to the Humane Society so that there can be inspectors to carry out this work in Ontario, particularly in northern Ontario where there’s a lot of difficulty in having these kinds of inspections carried out at the present time?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the responsibilities of the Humane Society. I am aware of its need for increased funding. I am meeting with the Humane Society on Thursday of this week, and I anticipate this is one of the subjects which will be discussed at that time.

Mr. Ferrier: Is the minister prepared to see that this very important work is not neglected, as is being done at the present, and that a solution will be found so that inspectors can investigate the complaints that come in without the long delays in investigating as at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the Humane Society is not discharging its obligations. I am aware that its costs, like everyone else’s, have escalated. As I said earlier, this will be one of the matters I think Mr. Hughes will be discussing with me. I don’t know the full extent of the subjects for discussion on Thursday, but I imagine this will be one of them. Depending on the outcome of those discussions and the need that is demonstrated, then I would of course be obliged to pass that on to the Management Board and my colleagues for consideration, as I would in all matters.

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

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the Minister of Colleges and Universities: I thank the minister for sending us a copy of his statement. Can the minister say whether or not this statement and the degree of agreement apparent in it between his ministry and the Algonquin College board means that Algonquin College will not turn away 2,400 first-year applicants next fall, and can he say whether or not the board will dismiss 140 staff members?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think that statement is pretty clear, and it says just that. There is no question of them not accepting first-year students in the fall. I think I made that clear at the time; and it certainly is implicit in the statement that I just read and in the statement that I gave, on behalf of myself and the chairman, immediately following the presentation of that report in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary; the hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After reading the minister’s statement, and in view of his statement of a while ago that he wanted to study the task force report and get together with the board of governors sometime in April, is he not precluding the merits of the study by saying that there will be no additional funds for 1975-1976 even before he has digested this task force report?

Hon. Ms. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the report was presented to the chairman, a number of members of the board, myself and two members of my staff. The report said, as I indicated in the statement, that they had no immediate financial crisis and, in fact, they had no deficit for the current year, when one took into account the very large operating surplus that they were carrying.

I don’t know that I can say any more than that, other than the fact that we indicated that no students would be turned away, and that there would not be major staff cuts. I think I did indicate at the time that the president told me their normal turnover would be about 120 staff in a year, and that to meet their anticipated deficit for next year -- which they were still not sure of, in the light of the report that we had presented them -- if it was the amount they had indicated of $1.4 million, that probably meant something in the order of about 50 staff, which, if their current figures were correct, could be met by attrition.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister not agree that his statement to the House was both unsatisfactory and misleading, because it did not deal with the problems of the 1975-1976 deficit? And can he say what, if any, solution he suggested to the board of Algonquin about how it could solve that 1975-1976 deficit?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is implicit in the statement that I will be meeting or hearing from them after they have had an opportunity to thoroughly study the report and discuss it with their staff.

Mr. Cassidy: Then the minister shouldn’t pretend the problem is solved, and that’s what he did.

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

THUNDER BAY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX

Mr. Foulds: A question of the Minister of Government Services, if I might: In view of the fact that the new government complex in Thunder Bay, often referred to as a mini-Queen’s Park and soon to he known as “Jessiman’s Folly,” is inaccessible to pedestrians and remote by bus transportation or any kind of public transportation, why is it that his ministry put in only enough parking spaces for one-third of the staff who are using the building, let alone the public generally? And what is the minister going to do to upgrade the parking and the accessibility of the building?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept the figures from the hon. member. Of course, I don’t normally accept the figures that he might come up with. We do realize there is a shortage of parking, mainly caused by the vehicles of the Ministry of Natural Resources and we are in the process now of making arrangements for a separate parking compound for those vehicles.

We are also in the process, Mr. Speaker, of enlarging the parking lot as soon as weather permits. We have additional land there and the parking lot can be enlarged. Then there will also be additional parking provided on the site when the Ministry of the Environment laboratory is constructed.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the minister didn’t accept my figures, why all this expansion; and when will it be completed?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will not accept the very erroneous figure that the member has suggested, that only one-third enough parking is provided, that is not correct.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Huron-Bruce.

RASPBERRY APPEAL CASE

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Why did the Ontario government appeal the award of Mr. O. J. Hartman in the raspberry case to the Ontario Court of Appeal, particularly when the government has lost the case twice previously?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Well, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that it is wise to take --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is feeling very relaxed these days.

Mr. Bullbrook: He must have got his exemption.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- the appropriate opportunities that the law provides, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why is the Ontario government refusing to supply Mr. Hartman elite stock for foundation production since the demand for certified raspberry plants exceeds the supply?

Further, if I recall correctly Judge Winter in his assessment of damages referred to the government’s refusal to supply the Hartmans with plants in 1973 as “high-handed and vindictive.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where have we heard that before?

Mr. Gaunt: Since there is no explanation, why is the Ontario government trying to destroy Mr. Hartman?

Mr. Roy: That’s very close to a dirty trick.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Nobody is trying to destroy Mr. Hartman. Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friends over there -- and they are not going to like this --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- would persuade their federal colleagues to pay half the shot, as they should but refuse to do, then we would go ahead and do it. But as long as the fellows over there, who are the perfect apologists for their friends in Ottawa, leave us to carry the whole cost for their programme, we are not going to do it unless we have to.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Yorkview.

OHC BRIBERY CHARGES

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The time is flitting fast away. There are several more questions that have to be asked here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tempus fugit, fellows.

Mr. Young: I have a question of the Attorney General. In view of the fact that one Frank Jones, former employee of Ontario Housing Corp., pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe from Pacific Paving, Mr. Jones being among several OHC employees who have been charged with accepting benefits, could the Attorney General tell us what action is being taken in respect to Pacific Paving of Markham, named as the ones who have paid the bribe to Mr. Jones?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, no, I can’t tell the member. The usual procedure would be to charge the person that offers the bribe.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, that’s not the usual procedure.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh yes, it is. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell us about bribes then.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Go ahead. The minister hasn’t done it before.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will get back to the hon. member with that and detail whether, in fact, that industry or corporation has been charged. That is the usual practice followed by the Crown attorney in that particular category.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister explain why, in all of these cases involving OHC employees, we have yet to see one company being charged? This question has been asked about five times in the House and we’re still awaiting a report. Why is it that none of the companies has been charged under the Criminal Code with giving a bribe which is an offence?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not aware that no companies have been charged. I wouldn’t be prepared to admit to that until I ascertained it from the officers involved.

Mr. Roy: We are supposed to get a report every month.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question asked previously.

CATALYTIC CONVERTERS

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston) asked me about hot catalytic mufflers and the damage they were doing in causing grass fires. There was some problem. However, most of them now located on cars which create problems have a heat shield both above and below the catalytic converter. In some cases they are completely insulated to eliminate this problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

PRELIMINARY COURT HEARINGS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General explain whether he’s made any representation to his federal counterpart, Mr. Lang --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Justice.

Mr. Roy: Yes, the federal Minister of Justice -- to make amendments to the Criminal Code to stop the abuse in relation to preliminary hearings, which in fact has affected the former Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) and the federal Minister of Labour in relation to the Hamilton Harbour case? Has he made any representation about changing the Code?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, as the hon. member probably knows, together with the other provincial Attorneys General I met for 2½ days with the federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. At that time we discussed a series of subjects and the minister advised us that he would be introducing several amendments to the federal Criminal Code. He anticipated the introduction would possibly be in late April or early May of this year. For obvious reasons he was not at liberty to detail those changes because he hadn’t put them before his caucus yet, but he assured us that as soon as they were introduced he would send a dozen or so copies to us.

To the best of my recollection there were no discussions that I am aware of dealing with preliminary hearings per se. There were discussions dealing with a range of other subjects. I don’t recall any discussions dealing with preliminary hearings. I can’t say that I’m anticipating no change in that area because I don’t know the nature of his proposed amendments, but I don’t recollect having discussed anything pertaining to those with him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Provided it’s short.

Mr. Roy: Yes, just one quick supplementary: Does the minister not agree there’s been an abuse and that possibly preliminary hearings should be, in fact, in camera? This would stop speculation and people reciting evidence that has gone on in the preliminary hearings.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, it probably would and one tends to be sympathetic perhaps to individuals who find themselves affected in a very adverse way because of the type of situation and the speculation. However, I think on balance that the court process -- whether it be a trial or a preliminary hearing -- except in the most unusual circumstances, should be open to the public.

Mr. Roy: Right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There’s no way the court could anticipate what evidence might be put forward in a preliminary hearing, and accordingly the court could not really rule on whether it would be an in camera hearing until that kind of allegation was made --

Mr. Roy: Would the minister ask for it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- at which time the court has the right -- and exercises it usually at the request of the defence -- not to allow the media to publish details. I don’t think one should get into the Star Chamber type of court activity and hold these matters in camera. I think, on balance, I would have to say no; I can’t share the member’s point of view.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

INFILTRATION ALLEGATION

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Attorney General. In view of correspondence directed to him by the Development Education Centre in Toronto, has he yet determined whether one Hugh Brian Gallagher, a former RCMP officer, has infiltrated organizations under what may be false pretences and whether he is presently operating a private investigator’s business without a licence?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t heard the name of the individual mentioned by the member until this moment. I have no knowledge of it, but I will look into it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions.

The hon. member for Welland South.

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Since the recent announcement by the minister directing the soft drink companies to provide new containers, removing the non-returnable containers from the market, what steps, if any, is the minister going to take to remove the waste from non-returnable containers now being used by one of its own government agencies, the LCBO?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t quite catch the last part. Is the member talking about the LCBO?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes.

Hon. W. Newman: Okay, Mr. Speaker, I’m glad that question was asked, because we had our inaugural meeting this morning with the solid waste advisory board. I had occasion to go down and address these ladies and gentlemen from around the province at the inaugural meeting this morning. I took the opportunity at that time to outline to them some of the high priority programmes we want them to have a look at. One of the high priority items that I’ve asked them to look at is the wine and spirits business.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich- Riverside.

ANTIBIOTICS IN ANIMAL FEED

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food concerning the use in animal feeds of antibiotics that cause transfer of drug resistance in harmful bacteria: What is the present status of the use of antibiotics in animal feeds in Ontario and in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: What is the state of it?

Mr. Burr: Yes, what is the status. Are antibiotics still being used in animal feed?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, but under the supervision and control of the food and drug officials at Ottawa. That’s a federal jurisdiction, and they have actual control of the whole thing. As far as I know there is no problem. I’ve never heard of any.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Could the minister tell us whether the 1969 restrictions in Great Britain on antibiotics in animal feeds are still in force?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: In Great Britain?

Mr. Burr: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I couldn’t answer that.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Morrow from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private Acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

Town of Seaforth;

City of Hamilton (No. 1);

City of Hamilton (No. 2);

City of Hamilton (No. 3);

Quinn Lumber and Builders’ Supply Company, Limited;

Borough of Etobicoke (No. 1);

Borough of Etobicoke (No. 2);

The Widow’s Home of Brantford;

Township of Goulbourn;

City of Kingston;

University of Windsor;

Carmel College;

Borough of Scarborough;

Huron College;

Township of Bruce;

City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Your committee further recommends that copies of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide be purchased for distribution to the members of the assembly.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that particular committee, could I raise a point of order with the House leader of the government concerning the matter of substitution, which has been suggested earlier on? Can the minister advise us if it will be his intention to suggest that particular committee do review the matter?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes, and the resolution standing in my name, No. 4 on the order paper, will be called tomorrow.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might trespass and make a brief statement which is of great interest to northern Ontario? Will that be all right?

Mr. Martel: If the minister is giving us some goodies.

Mr. Speaker: Any further reports? May we revert to ministerial statements for a moment? The hon. minister.

Mr. Roy: He should give us a schedule of goodies.

Mr. Martel: Tax the mining industry fairly.

Mr. Roy: Those terrible feds, eh? Some more dirty tricks.

DRYDEN MUNICIPAL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that on behalf of the government of Ontario, I have today signed a new subsidiary agreement with the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion to provide approximately $3.2 million for selective municipal servicing improvements in the town of Dryden.

Our government and the government of Canada have agreed to provide sums of $1.6 million each towards this project.

To complete the provincial-municipal aspect of the agreement, my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), met this morning with municipal representatives in the town of Dryden, where he represented the government of Ontario in a signing ceremony. The Dryden agreement, which hon. Donald Jamieson has signed on behalf of the federal government, is the latest in a series of subsidiary agreements to be signed under the authority of the 10-year Canada-Ontario general development agreement established in February, 1974. As hon. members will recall, similar subsidiary agreements were signed last year to initiate projects in Cornwall, Thunder Bay and other parts of northwestern Ontario. Projects covered under the terms of this latest agreement -- formally known as the Dryden Development Infrastructure Subsidiary Agreement -- will provide the basis for a substantial increase in the supply of housing, which is urgently needed in Dryden to support expanded commercial and industrial activity.

Mr. Roy: Another federal dirty trick!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The signing of this agreement underlines our recognition of the town of Dryden as one of the strategic centres for the northwestern Ontario region.

Traditionally, Dryden has been heavily dependent upon the forest resource sector as its major source of employment and municipal tax revenue. Now, with the significant new developments under way and anticipated in the area, and the town’s strategic location on major road, rail and air transportation routes, this agreement will help sustain ongoing economic activities and support continued growth.

Meanwhile, plans are moving ahead for construction of improved sewage treatment facilities in the city of Thunder Bay under the federal-provincial subsidiary agreement signed in Thunder Bay last May. This project is to cost an estimated $23 million, and as with the Dryden project the cost will be shared equally by the two senior governments.

Since the Dryden agreement marks another step in the Ontario government’s Design for Development programme for northwestern Ontario, I would like to take just one moment to bring the hon. members up to date on the progress of that programme in the northwest. Under the Design for Development programme, several millions of dollars of provincial funds were allocated last year for basic improvements in northwestern Ontario. The largest of these is a 51-mile resource road between Dryden and Fort Frances, which is now under construction at an estimated total cost of $8 million.

As was expected, conditions have changed somewhat since the Design for Development programme was set out for northwestern Ontario in 1970. The city of Thunder Bay, which was established that same year, has since made admirable strides toward its goal as the leading urban centre of the northwest. Several other goals set out specifically in the Design for Development -- notably the employment goals set in 1970 for the year 1985 -- have already been achieved.

At the same time, conditions have been improved for the two major industries on which the economy of northwestern Ontario depends. The pulp and paper industry is healthier than it was in 1970 and the mining industry faces a more promising future than was foreseen five years ago. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the government of Ontario is re-evaluating the Design for Development programme for that region of Ontario with a view to bringing it up to date so that we may set new goals and identify new projects in keeping with the region’s changing needs.

I will be pleased to report to the House as those new goals are set and projects are designed to help this promising region of Ontario achieve its full potential.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain.