Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

Hon. W. Newman: I am pleased to announce today the establishment of a financial protection task force to review methods of protecting farmers against default of payment for their products.

I believe all of us are concerned about a situation where a producer sells his entire crop to one or two buyers and then, because of difficulties experienced by the buyers, may be unable to collect all or part of the payment due him. To determine the best method of extending financial protection to producers, the task force will examine existing provincial programmes and also look at methods used in other jurisdictions.

Among Ontario’s existing programmes are the dairy fund set up under the Farm Payments Act, the bonding arrangements required by the Live Stock Community Sales Act, the protection extended to producers who store their grain in commercial elevators and the licensing provisions of the Farm Products Marketing Act and the Farm Products Marketing Board. The task force will ask individuals and interested organizations to submit briefs and comments.

Chairman of the task force is Morris Huff, vice-chairman of the Ontario Food Council. Members from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food are Ontario livestock commissioner Hubert McGill, area co-ordinator Richard Heard from London and dairy co-ordinator Joseph Meiser from Toronto. Other members are Marshall Dawson of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Norman Harris of the Management Board of Cabinet, Hugh Baird of Saintfield, a dairy farmer, and Sam Piott, chairman of the Ontario Tender Fruit Growers’ Marketing Board.

I expect the task force to report its findings to me early in 1977.

DENTAL CARE COVERAGE

Hon. B. Stephenson: I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. members an amendment to the section of the regulations made under the Health Insurance Act, 1972, concerning OHIP dental benefits. The amended regulation contains three major changes. While the changes become effective June 1, we will honour commitments for any patient whose appointment for admission to hospital for dental surgery was made prior to May 15, 1976. The previous list of 24 dental surgical procedures to be performed in hospital has been reduced to 21 procedures.

The surgical removal of impacted teeth, when two or more quadrants (upper and lower, left and right) of the mouth are involved, remains a benefit of the plan. However, under the new regulation, the surgical removal of teeth in other cases may be a benefit of the plan on condition that: first, the service is medically necessary, as with the other hospital benefits; and second, the dentist has received prior approval from the general manager of OHIP for the provision of such service. An application form for such approval will be available shortly and distributed to all the dentists throughout the province.

These changes reflect the Ministry of Health’s policy that hospitalization should take place only when necessary and, in the case of surgical removal of teeth, that the OHIP general manager should approve such hospitalization on the basis of medical necessity.

It is anticipated, Mr. Speaker, that this will derive a saving of up to $5 million annually.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

VIRAL DISEASES ISOLATION

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question first for the acting Minister of Health: Is it possible for her to respond now to the question which was placed on the order paper of March 29 by my colleague from Durham West (Mr. Godfrey) and reconfirmed by a recent meeting of the Ontario Medical Association, asking that special isolation centres be established in Ontario for the treatment of identifiable viral diseases, particularly because of the anxieties which have been raised about the possible importation of Lassa fever?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the Department of National Health and Welfare we have recommended that two such isolation sites be designated and that they be specially equipped to deal specifically with Lassa fever. However, I think it should be noted that there has not been any case of Lassa fever reported in Canada up to this date. It is to be hoped sincerely that no one will import it even during the influx of individuals attending the Olympic Games. As a result of our concern for this we have worked with the Department of National Health and Welfare to establish two specific sites in eastern Canada.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, not to be obstinate but the acting Minister of Health may want brought to her attention the Canada Diseases Weekly Report, dated May 15, the title “Lassa Fever”. It indicates, “This is the first occasion in which contact with Lassa fever has required surveillance activities in Canada, including in Ottawa. The first contact that was made was a Peace Corps volunteer from Sierra Leone.” Given what is indicated in the report as to the consequences of the fever, should it spread, and given what the Ontario Medical Association says -- I thought at first a little stridently but I guess this is pretty serious stuff -- can the minister assure us that the isolation centres will be established in time for the summer activity?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to provide that assurance on behalf of the federal government because it is its specific responsibility. We are urging it to do so and I think we are much reassured that it is considering this as seriously as the Ontario ministry has.

Mr. Godfrey: I would like to ask the acting Minister of Health how it becomes a matter for the federal government? Surely the provision of medical facilities in the Province of Ontario is a provincial matter? I would put a second part to that question; would this not also apply to other infectious diseases such as smallpox, for which there are not adequate isolation observation facilities available at present?

Hon. B. Stephenson: May I thank the hon. member for his observations?

Mr. Lewis: It is called upgrading medical education.

WATER SUPPLY IN FRANKFORD

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of the Environment, has the minister yet found an opportunity to resolve the problem of the citizens in the township of Sidney, whose wells are polluted and whose water problems are terribly severe, the minister himself has recognized, and who cannot get water from the village of Frankford? Has his ministry yet identified the source of the pollution and is there any way his ministry can resolve the problem which has lasted many months now, and we’re entering the summer?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think the officials of my ministry have concluded the cause of the problem is the tar or black liquid that was spread on the road about the time of the contamination. We can’t seem to find any other source, and there are traces of that type of material in the water that has been analysed by our ministry.

We’re hoping other supply sources of drinking water such as other wells located in the area, can be made available to the people there, rather than a communal water supply, which is a rather expensive proposition at this time.

One suggestion is that there be a large well made available for the small cluster of people who live in that particular area where the wells were contaminated. This is something rather unconventional, rather unique, but there is really no objection to it, assuming there is a pure supply of potable water in that area. That is the proposition we’re making to the municipal officials now. If that doesn’t work and the wells themselves cannot be corrected to avoid the contamination, then we’ll have to look at some communal type of supply by putting a pipe out from the municipality.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister realize the office of the Ministry of the Environment in Kingston has informed the citizens of Sidney township that:

“The Ministry of the Environment has no legal way of empowering the village of Frankford to either impose water restrictions or supply water to you.”

And the minister has informed the citizens as recently as February, 1976, and I’m quoting:

“We would observe that the works in Frankford are being constructed as a provincial project, and it is therefore assumed that we can make water available if necessary to Sidney township no matter what the position of the Frankford council is.”

This has gone on for several months. The citizens are terribly agitated. Can I ask the minister to exercise his personal intervention and get it resolved?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but as I indicated, to make that water available, under normal circumstances, would be quite expensive for the users in that area.

Mr. Lewis: They said they will pay if they can get it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, at least we can find out what the cost would be and put that to them; and on that basis, probably we can supply them with water.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY LEGISLATION

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations relating to the Blue Vista episode: Since his registrar knew on Dec. 17, as my colleague from Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) pointed out, that Blue Vista was threatened with bankruptcy, why did it take until Dec. 30, 1975, for his ministry to ask for a temporary suspension and revocation of the licence, while money was accepted through that entire two-week period and therefore substantial individual losses incurred?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we were negotiating with Nordair, which was the carrier, to ensure that everyone, particularly at that Christmas season, received the trip that they paid for. If we had closed clown Blue Vista, Nordair would have closed down all of its flights and we would have had thousands of people stranded at the holiday season.

Mr. Lewis: Really?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Really. That’s the way you do it. We ensured that those people got their trips through Nordair and another tour operator.

Mr. Lewis: Amazing. That’s free enterprise for you.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary, in regard to those would-be travellers represented by Ron and Judy Rea, who have had their claim for reimbursement reviewed on two occasions during the last four months, but not in any way rejected, what pressure, if any, has the minister put on the board of trustees to give these people the benefit of the doubt? Can the minister explain why the trustee for the compensation fund refused to allow legal counsel for these people to appear before them?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t know that that is a supplementary to the original question, Mr. Speaker, but there has been no rejection of claims by the board of trustees. The registrar asked Judy Rea to provide information several months ago. She has refused to do it, or has failed to do it, and until that information is received, her status cannot be clarified. The question is whether or not she was an unregistered travel agent, in which case there would be no valid claim on the funds, or whether she was an employee of Blue Vista. Those things have to be determined before those claims can be dealt with.

[10:15]

LONDON RESTAURANT WORKERS STRIKE

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Can the Minister of Labour take some personal interest in the prolonged strike at the Ridout Tavern and at the Garage Dining Lounge in London, where a number of workers with the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders’ International Union cannot seem to get, despite mediation efforts, a settlement which corresponds to all the other settlements recently arrived at in that industry in the London area?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I realize we have been involved intermittently for a period of time in this dispute. I shall most certainly examine the situation next week and see what we can do about it.

Mr. Shore: As I understand it, in negotiated settlements or in disputes, there is not supposed to be any vicious attack on personal or public property. I wonder if the minister is aware there has been some damage done during the strike, and if she would look into it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall.

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the acting Minister of Health: Can she report on the results of her meeting with the Browndale officials? Can she tell us whether the audit is available? Can she tell us whether she could expand on references in the past to payments by Browndale involving thousands of dollars to either consultants or other companies?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the audit is still not entirely completed because we have requested further information, which we are assured will be forthcoming some time within the very near future. I may say that the meeting yesterday, I think, was useful. I think it probably, however, is the first of a series of meetings regarding a number of issues related to the Browndale situation; and when that series is completed, I’m sure that there will be a full report to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Shore: Could I ask who is doing --

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member has had one supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: That was my first question; not a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I meant it was the final supplementary by the hon. member for London North.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I just asked a question on Browndale; I received an answer. I was about to ask a supplementary when my friend from London North got up and --

Mr. Speaker: May I make it clear; the hon. member for Hamilton West may ask a supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you very much. Will the minister comment on any of these payments and the so-called management contracts that Browndale, the Brown Camps residential and day schools or any other Brown concern has? Could she also comment on the fact that these contractual arrangements have not been allowed in other jurisdictions? They have been considered questionable legal practices in other jurisdictions, such as Illinois for instance.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that Illinois had considered such to be illegal; however, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment at all on those because those are the specific areas about which we have requested further information. When we have that further information, then comment will be made.

Mr. Shore: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask the minister who is doing the audit on this investigation?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is an audit which is being carried out by the financial branch of the ministry, to which several of our expert auditors are presently directed.

Mr. Reid: Are they the ones who lost $50 million a couple of years ago?

POLICE PROTECTION

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Solicitor General: What Steps is the minister taking to ensure that the Niagara Regional Police Force will find itself sufficiently funded to perform its duties in St. Catharines, so that St. Catharines will not have to hire its own police force for the city -- despite the high taxes being paid in that region? Is the minister aware that the city of St. Catharines has decided to hire its own police force for municipal bylaw enforcement?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the city of St. Catharines has hired a bylaw enforcement officer. I think that’s quite within their rights to do so, if they decide that is the course they wish to follow.

In regard to regional policing in the area, the OPP are still carrying a certain amount of the burden in that area, which we shouldn’t be doing. When I say we shouldn’t be doing it, I mean the regional police should take it over. I know that the cost of policing is a large item in the budget of any of the regional municipalities, but as to sufficient policing in the city of St. Catharines, that is a matter between the city and the regional government.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: In regard to adequate policing, how would the minister suggest they police the area of Crystal Beach with the regional police force when we have such an influx of people coming in from the United States?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I suppose the answer, if there are not sufficient police, is to hire additional police.

Mr. Mancini: Where does the money come from?

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Does the minister think it’s entirely fair that certain regional municipalities should be receiving free police service whereas other regional municipalities have to pay the full cost of police service?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, it’s not, and that’s one of the problems we have at the present time. Some of the smaller municipalities which should be policing their own municipalities are still relying on the Ontario Provincial Police to do the job. We are doing our best to straighten it out but, if anything, it is a case of the OPP being overly generous rather than being under-generous; and if we tighten up and enforce the regulations, as we are attempting to do and should be doing, it will mean more expense to the municipalities rather than less expense.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary: I wonder if the Solicitor General could tell us what, if anything, the Ontario Police Commission is doing about this? This morning, he has already had five or six complaints about it. Is the Ontario Police Commission interested, concerned or setting forth any policy or recommendations?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The policy is pretty clear as to who should police what areas, and the Ontario Police Commission would like to see us adhere to that policy; but the problem is that some of the smaller municipalities say they simply can’t afford to carry the cost of policing, which the law says they should carry.

Mr. Shore: Like the Niagara region?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We hope to tighten up on that as the municipalities are able to assume the responsibilities.

Mr. Singer: That is a good answer, that one.

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Since the minister is reported to have said the warning issued by Hydro Chairman Taylor on the need to reduce hydro consumption now or face restraints in the near future, is fair and reasonable, will the minister tell the House which of the measures the Hydro chairman recommended for conserving hydro that he is now prepared to implement in the form of a reasonable conservation policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Turn out his lights.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear that the sorts of things the chairman was talking about, the kind of intervention by Ontario Hydro or by the government, would have to be the last step, if you will. At this point in time, I don’t think a case can be made for government directly intervening in the daily lives of people and of businesses in the ways and manners outlined in that letter.

What the chairman was saying, and trying to do, was to warn the people of Ontario that there is a potential problem five or six years down the road. If the hon. member was still here in five or six years and I, or some other Minister of Energy, stood on this side and said, “Today, we’ve got a problem,” he would say, “Why weren’t we warned about it five or six years ago?” I think the chairman is properly doing his job.

Mr. Nixon: Time the minister was back in the school room.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since the minister seems to know what I would say five or six years from now --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m not sure what the member will say in five or six minutes.

Mr. S. Smith: -- what I might say five or six years from now, if it’s of interest to him, is, “Why didn’t you introduce a decent conservation programme when you had the chance?”

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Was that a question?

Mr. S. Smith: No, it was not a question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member doesn’t want an answer, in other words.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister will have his chance to answer in a moment.

Mr. Nixon: Now comes the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?

Mr. S. Smith: When, for instance, will Hydro’s pricing structure be changed so that they charge more for increasing rates of consumption instead of less? And if he is not developing mandatory controls to reduce consumption, what is the minister doing about developing a built-in regulation designed to conserve energy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member wants Hydro rates to go up even further?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If that particular member would take the time to read Hansard, to read the Hansard of estimates, to read the reports that come out of the ministry, to talk to his members on the select committee and to talk to his members who were in the estimates committee last fall, he would know that the new Ontario Building Code came into place on Dec. 13 --

Mr. Nixon: How about the rate structure?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- with much better standards of insulation for all new dwellings under 6,000 sq ft. He would know --

Mr. S. Smith: Very impressive. What about the rate structure?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- we have in place a very comprehensive conservation programme in the province. He would know Ontario Hydro has been directed to have in my hands by Oct. 1 its costing study.

Mr. Shore: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He would know I have given a commitment that that will go to the Energy Board for a public hearing.

Mr. S. Smith: I take it we are not going to hear about the rate structure.

Mr. Peterson: Give the minister a personality test.

GROUP HOME LICENSING

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Will the minister table a report he has, which I can assure him is not of great interest to the Russians and there is no other need to keep secret, on Viking Houses, commissioned by the former minister last year in response to a series of Globe and Mail stories, which apparently recommends licensing for all group homes regardless of the number of children in them? Will he now admit it was this support that prompted his assistant deputy minister to promise legislation in this regard last year?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I think the leader of the Liberal Party may be somewhat confused in terms of the sequence of events and the reporting.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: As I explained some time ago, an interministerial committee was set up. The report was completed and it is presently being discussed by the policy field on social development. That’s a cabinet document and not for publication. In terms of his specific reference to Viking Houses and the licensing of a home, regardless of the number of residents in that home, I don’t think it makes sense frankly to provide a licence for someone who might have a visitor, for example, a grandmother, who would be looking after a couple of grandchildren. The hon. member would have them licensed if what he says is correct.

Mr. Shore: That’s the minister’s real heart coming out now.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Yes, indeed. I would rather the hon. member be more specific in the particular document that he’s talking about. In my estimation, that’s part and parcel of the overall study of the problem of residential care, whether it’s for the young or for the old.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the minister is unable to tell the difference between a group home operating for profit, as Viking Houses is, and a grandmother having some children to babysit, may I ask if the intent of his remarks is that any grandmothers who presently happen to have five children in the house are supposed to apply to his ministry for a licence?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Again, I would have expected that the hon. member would recognize the difference between children who have common parentage and those children who don’t. We are talking about children without common parentage when we are talking about the group homes.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is your grandmother, not ours.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If the member wants to talk about his grandmother, the grandchildren could be from different parentage.

Mr. Ruston: They are in bad shape over there.

Mr. S. Smith: When the minister knows that his own report has advised licensing group homes for fewer than five children, how can he come before this House and tell us that that is impossible when his own assistant deputy minister has recommended a very similar thing and has promised --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I point out to the hon. member for Hamilton West this is not supposed to be a debating session?

Mr. Peterson: It was a good question.

Mrs. Campbell: Let him answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question is to ask for information and then the supplementary is to ask for a clarification or further information and is not to be debated.

Mr. Ruston: It is called a non-reply.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The hon. member made reference to licensing of homes, regardless of the number of residents.

Mr. Mancini: Which question is he answering now?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The second reference was in regard to licensing of group homes with fewer than five. There’s a big difference because one may draw the line at three and one may draw the line at four but presently it’s at five. Certainly we are considering the drawing the line at something other than five but I wouldn’t suggest that that be drawn at two, for example.

[10:30]

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is the minister also considering the, in a sense, rather broader question in the interministerial task force of the right for group homes, dealing with disadvantaged young or old, to locate in municipalities and in communities across the province without the discriminatory exclusion which many municipalities now render by zoning bylaws? In other words will he suggest an amendment to the Municipal Act or the Planning Act, which will remove the right to discriminate against group homes of the kind we’re discussing, whether they’re for kids or the aged?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about is the problem of municipalities passing restricted area bylaws or zoning bylaws which effectively prohibit the establishment of a group home in a neighbourhood. As a matter of fact we have addressed ourselves to that problem. We have suggested a model type of bylaw a municipality could pass which would permit this type of thing because we think there’s merit in many cases in establishing a more normal neighbourhood type of setting. At the same time, in direct reply, we have not considered making it mandatory for a municipality to zone any specific use in any specific area.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Mr. S. Smith: One final question of the acting Minister of Health: Is the minister aware of the mounting concern in the United States about the high incidence of leukemia and lymphoma deaths among synthetic rubber workers; and is the minister aware of the conference convened by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in the United States in Kentucky on April 30 of this year to discuss this particular matter? Can she tell us whether she is acting to inquire whether a similar situation exists in this province?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the conference was held about this specific concern. We have asked for a full report of the conference documents in order that we may look at them. The matter, of course, will be referred -- or has been referred already I believe -- to the advisory committee on occupational and environmental health.

DRIVING PRIVILEGES OF FEDERAL MINISTER

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. In the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, I’d like to ask the Attorney General, since his colleague stated yesterday: “Mr. Marchand certainly did not at that time and does not now hold an Ontario driver’s licence;” how does he reconcile that with John King’s front page story in the Globe and Mail this morning that Mr. Marchand was issued with a new Ontario driver’s licence on March 15, after the suspension was lifted? If that is accurate, what is the explanation for Ontario issuing the licence when originally it was held in Quebec?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I’m obviously not in a position to answer that question. My information is the same as was given to the Legislature yesterday, namely that Ontario has not issued a licence to Mr. Marchand. That information was given to me this morning and I have no other information at the present time. I’m sure if the Minister of Transportation and Communications is advised of developments other than the information he obviously has to date, he’ll so inform the House.

BUTTONVILLE AIRPORT EXPANSION

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. In the light of the town of Caledon-Orangeville airport decision, and in view of the fact that the town of Markham has referred the matter of the extension of the runways of the privately-owned Buttonville airport back to the Ontario Municipal Board, will the cabinet now reconsider its position, deliver the appropriate directives to the OMB and thereby abide by the wishes of the people of the town of Markham who do not want those runways extended?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it we have indicated that this is not within the jurisdiction of the cabinet and this matter will have to be resolved in some other fashion. I would point out to the hon. member, without getting into the very hazardous position of expressing a point of view on what the law may or may not be, there is not necessarily a parallel between the decision with respect to the municipality of Caledon and the Orangeville airport and the situation in Markham as it relates to Buttonville.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary: Does that mean, then, that the Ontario government is going to assume jurisdiction in this area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, on the contrary, we’re not.

AID TO THIRD WORLD

Mr. Samis: I have a question of the Premier. Some of my senior colleagues assure me that by personal nature the Premier is a compassionate and generous person.

Mr. Shore: How senior are they?

Mr. Samis: Can the Premier tell us why he felt compelled to play the role of Scrooge for the Ontario Council for International Cooperation in refusing to assist them in their efforts?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the House leader will be tabling very shortly a report that was prepared by the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food related to this matter. I have communicated with Bishop Ragg and I would be delighted to provide the members with a copy of that letter because I think a lot of them have received communication from their constituents. In my letter to Bishop Ragg, I’ve indicated this government’s very sympathetic support to the activities of CIDA and the involvement of organizations on a voluntary basis with the developing nations, with the Third World or whatever terminology the hon. member might like to use.

I further pointed out to Bishop Ragg that this province has made and will continue to make either funding or supplies available in particular areas of concern. I further pointed out to Bishop Ragg that we had announced very recently that Ontario would continue to make a very significant contribution through its taxpayers to those foreign students who are here under the CIDA programme.

I further indicated in the letter -- and I think the report contains this -- that while we are quite sympathetic the structure is such that it should be funded by the federal government of this country. While I personally am totally in support of what the voluntary organizations are doing, we feel that it is a better procedure to follow to have this funded basically through the voluntary organizations and through CIDA.

I further indicated to Bishop Ragg in this letter -- and I’m quite prepared to make it available to the hon. members, plus the report -- that we would support their discussions with the federal agencies and with the federal government. I also made a philosophical observation in the letter that may run contrary to the hon. member’s point of view -- and I speak as one who feels rather strongly about the involvement of the churches -- that there is great merit in continuing the voluntary aspect of these programmes and that individual members of churches and other organizations should be encouraged. I think that is one way we can participate. I have a certain reluctance for the total programme becoming that of funding by whatever level of government.

While the hon. member may feel we are being less than generous, it is not a case of that; it’s a question of the right mechanism, and the most equitable. As I indicated to the hon. members and made very clear in the letter to the bishop, in individual cases, as we have done over the years and will continue to do, this province will assist wherever it can. But we think in terms of principle and in terms of overall effectiveness, that really it should be done through the federal agencies which, incidentally, I understand have increased their funding in this current fiscal year.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: After that very lengthy defence, is the final result that this government is committing absolutely nothing in regard to this particular request?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have written to Bishop Ragg. I have pointed all of this out to him and indicated our support in terms of what they were doing in principle. But I did indicate to him that as a province we felt our programme should continue as it has with the individual situations, and that the funding and the programme to the extent that government is involved should be done by the federal government of this country.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the Premier’s refusal to match at least a part of the $9 million raised by volunteer subscription seems to be on a basis of high principle on his part -- that is, it’s cleansing for the morality of the community to raise the money without government involvement -- why is it that he authorized the travel of the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food all over the world to see if such a programme were necessary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to make it very clear that I do support the voluntary aspect of what is happening. I also support enthusiastically this country’s role in terms of government support for Third World countries. I also believe that is what a national government is for and it is what a national programme is for.

Mr. Nixon: The western provinces contributed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some other provinces have, and with strings attached. One of our sister provinces has become involved in the scheme on the very clear understanding that it could apply specifically to certain commodities that might be in a surplus situation in that province; as I say there are strings attached and I am not quarreling with that.

I asked Mr. Hilliard personally to undertake this because I am concerned about the general approach these organizations are taking. In terms of what they are doing, I very genuinely support it and I was most anxious that this government have available to it, in terms of reaching this decision, the best information that we could get, and I believe that we obtained it. I think Mr. Hilliard’s involvement has been a very positive --

Mr. Nixon: But his response could not have anything to do with your decision.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If Mr. Hilliard had come in and, in his report, laid out a very real rationale for provinces getting into this on a comprehensive basis, the result might have been different. I can’t say that, but I do have his report and the hon. member can read it.

Mr. Nixon: You are speaking for the United Church Observer right now.

Mr. Reid: Will you table that report?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It has been tabled.

PRIVATE POLICE

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Is the Solicitor General concerned with the proliferation of special constables and industrial armies in the province?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have our eye upon the situation.

Mr. Singer: Which one, the left or the right?

An hon. member: Both eyes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I always look at everything with a singular eye, Mr. Speaker. No, there are no great problems at the present time. We have a few problems with them from place to place but they are no serious problem to us.

Mr. Nixon: Is that individually or collectively?

Mr. Reid: Long John Silver over there.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary: Is the minister going to draw up guidelines as to the responsibilities of these special constables? Is he going to encourage the various industries to set up some types of discipline as to the behaviour of the constables and provide for special training for them?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think we will be doing anything about special training, but regarding the other I think the answer is yes. We will be reviewing our legislation, I would hope next session, sir, and from both a legislative point of view and regulation, the other will be taken into consideration. We will have something for the House. I don’t think that will involve special training for them, but it will certainly set standards.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. acting Minister of Health has the answer to questions, I believe.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on May 17 the Leader of the Opposition asked if he could have the regression analysis for the various hospitals affected by bed closures or budget reductions; and also about the rationalization study of the closure of Goderich and Timmins psychiatric hospitals.

I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at a news conference on March 1 the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) advised that the figures on individual hospitals’ regression analysis would not be made public; however, should any hospital wish to appeal the bed closures or budget reductions applied to its institution, members of the staff of the Ministry of Health would be available to discuss with the hospital the figures used by the ministry.

In addition to that, I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to Hansard of Jan. 15, 1976, and again to Hansard of March 10, 1976, during which time the Minister of Health responded to him fully on this matter, first during a question period and secondly during the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Lewis: Oh no -- on a supplementary -- I recall quite well our discussing the matter of rationalization studies; I still would like to know why we can’t have them?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I believe that the minister believes he gave the full basis of the study for the psychiatric hospitals during these two discussions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

WATER POLLUTION

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment, emanating from the status report, “Water Pollution in the Serpent River Basin, 1976.” Given that the ministry has accepted the world standard of three picocuries of radium per litre of water, and given that the ministry has found levels of eight and nine picocuries per litre of radium 226 in Quirke and Whiskey Lakes, and a mean radium 226 level of 20 picocuries per litre in the inlet to Pecors Lake, and given that the report states, “relatively high activity recorded at Sheriff Creek upstream of Elliot Lake is of concern, particularly since Elliot Lake is the drinking water source for the town of Elliot Lake;” what programme of radium 226 control has the ministry implemented on the drainage from the tailings area of Stanrock and CanMet uranium mines and on the Sheriff Creek?

[10:45]

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the problems in the Elliot Lake, Serpent River and Whiskey Lake area involve a great deal of documentation over a period of about 15 or 20 years and I would like, therefore, to have that question put on the order paper. We have the matter in hand, particularly as to drinking water supplies, but because of the detail of that question I would like to answer on the order paper.

CONTROLLED ACCESS HIGHWAYS

Mr. Eakins: To the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister tell me what is the policy of his ministry in regard to controlled access highways? Does it vary from area to area or is it the same across the province?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite difficult to answer quickly what the policy is on controlled access highways; I don’t know what particular highway he is referring to. It is my understanding -- and I would like to get the full information for the hon. member -- that the policy would be the same all over the province for the same particular type of highway.

Mr. Eakins: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister could supply me with information as to why so many people on Highway 35 at the Minden bypass in Haliburton county have been turned down for access to that highway when last August the Peterborough Lumber Co. received permission to gain access to the highway?

Mr. Mancini: That’s terrible.

An hon. member: Some are more equal than others.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not familiar with that particular instance. I will get the hon. member the information.

Mr. Speaker: The same minister has an answer to a question asked previously.

DRIVING PRIVILEGES OF FEDERAL MINISTER

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member for York South asked me two supplementary questions. First: “Is it customary to appeal to the National Parole Board for a release from a court decision in a case like this [he was referring to Mr. Marchand’s case.] If so, can the minister indicate when and if it has ever taken place before.” His second question: “Can the minister report to the House on whether there are any precedents?”

It has been reported in the Globe and Mail this morning that in 1975 the National Parole Board received 654 applications for review and the board made favourable decisions in 262 of these cases. The members of the House will understand that these figures represent all of Canada. I would advise the members that last year, 1975, my ministry received revocations or modifications of court orders from the National Parole Board which affected 136 Ontario drivers.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary to this and to the question I put to the Attorney General in the absence of the minister a few moments ago: Is it accurate or is it not that it was Ontario that issued the new licence to Mr. Marchand after the suspension was lifted, as is reported in the Globe and Mail this morning?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge that is not correct.

Mr. Lewis: That is just typical of the Globe.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The best information I have, from my officials and from the documentation I have seen, is that Mr. Marchand holds a Province of Quebec driver’s licence.

Mr. Shore: There had better be a big retraction in the press.

Mr. Nixon: There will be a little box in the Globe tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Snow: When the suspension was registered by the court, it is my understanding that because the order said that Mr. Marchand would be deprived of his driving privileges for one year, the information was recorded in the computer files of my ministry that this suspension order existed even though there was no actual Ontario licence to suspend. The same information, I understand, went to the registrar for the Province of Quebec. When the information, the Telex and the letter, arrived from the National Parole Board stating that the suspension had been lifted, that information was fed into the computer files, and it lifted the suspension order from our files.

My knowledge, and the best advice I can get from my staff, is that there was no Ontario driver’s licence issued to Mr. Marchand, either before or after the suspension. I guess there is no reason, really, Mr. Speaker, after the suspension was lifted, if Mr. Marchand -- his address is shown on the information from the Parole Board as an address in the city of Ottawa; I haven’t got that with me now -- but presumably if he had wanted to apply for a driver’s licence after the suspension was lifted, and pass the normal test anyone else would pass, he could have been issued a licence after that suspension was lifted.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY LEGISLATION

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, still with regard to the Blue Vista situation, but an aspect that has not been covered this morning. Would the minister clarify his statement of yesterday about the kind of corrective action which he has in mind to overcome the two very serious problems that have arisen with regard to the present board; namely, its defiance of the government’s guidelines on the interpretation of section 13, and the administration of the compensation fund; and the board’s refusal to accord normal democratic procedures and rights to persons who are very seriously affected by their decision, particularly Judy Rea --

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Come on, get to it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please

Ms. Bryden: -- who is maybe liable for $20,000 if she is not declared to be an employee, or an accredited agent; and she has been denied the right to appear or to be represented?

Mr. Speaker: I think the question has been asked now, thank you.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, we have not received any formal communication from the board as to the decisions which were taken last Friday. All I have is verbal information which indicates that they rejected four sample claims which were put before them.

The question of the Judy Rea case, as I have already explained, depends entirely on the question of fact. If she was an unregistered travel agent, then those people who dealt with her, after all the warnings that were issued last year not to deal with unregistered travel agents, have no protection from the fund. If she is an employee of Blue Vista, then they are fully covered, because Blue Vista was a registered tour operator in the Province of Ontario.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please; I was so engrossed I didn’t notice that the oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Reid: Must have been the last question.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Mr. Lewis: If the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) had been here this morning, we could have livened up this question period.

AID TO THIRD WORLD REPORT

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I want to table a report of the Study Mission on Aid to Developing Countries,” along with a copy of the letter signed by the Premier to the Rt. Rev. T. B. B. Ragg, Anglican Bishop of Huron, whose brief on behalf of the churches of Ontario prompted the government to commission a study on the subject

DRIVING PRIVILEGES OF FEDERAL MINISTER

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I know this is probably not in order, but I would just like to rise, if I could, on a point of clarification. It is my understanding that the Parole Board Act, and the Criminal Code, with the recent amendments that have taken place, no longer provide for an appeal to the Parole Board on the suspension of a licence. I forgot to add that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that when the House rises today it will stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 25

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved second reading of Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

TOWNSHIP OF WEST CARLETON ACT

Mr. Renwick, on behalf of Mr. Yakabuski, moved second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Township of West Carleton.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Township of West Carleton.

TOWNSHIP OF BOSANQUET ACT

Mr. Renwick, on behalf of Mr. Eaton, moved second reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Township of Bosanquet.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Township of Bosanquet.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Samis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now I know what the term loyal opposition really means on a Friday morning; co-operation plus.

J’aimerais d’abord vous féliciter pour votre nomination et votre travail dans cette Chambre et j’aimerais surtout féliciter vos deux collègues, le député de Simcoe Est et le député de Lake Nipigon. Le travail et l’habileté de votre circonscription de Simcoe Est est bien reconnu dans cette Chambre.

Mais j’aimerais rendre un hommage spécial au député de Nipigon pour son magnifique travail dans les sept derniers mois. Il a prouvé qu’il était capable de prendre ses responsabilités et d’effectuer un travail formidable pour toute l’Assemblée dans un esprit neuf.

Naturellement j’aimerais remercier les gens de la circonscription de Cornwall pour m’avoir réélu au Parlement et de continuer mon travail comme leur porte-parole à Queen’s Park.

Aussi je voudrais rendre hommage à mon adversaire dans la dernière élection, le Père Rudolph Villeneuve parce que c’est un homme sincère, honnête et dévoué, et parce qu’il a contribué beaucoup à notre communauté. Il me fait plaisir de voir qu’il a continué son travail dans notre communauté, dans l’église et dans le domaine de l’éducation, pour faire de Cornwall une meilleure communauté pour ses citoyens. Vraiment c’est un homme de valeur!

Mr. Speaker, it gives me considerable pleasure to participate in this particular debate and like the members speaking prior to me, I would like to congratulate you upon your nomination and also pay considerable homage to your two assistants, the member for Simcoe East and the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Peterson: It’s not necessary to translate; we all understand.

Mr. Samis: Don’t worry.

May I say that the ability of the member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) has always been highly regarded by this member and his capabilities have always been appreciated. I would like to make special mention, though, of my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), not merely because he is a colleague. I want to commend him for his fine work, his neutrality, his ability to control the situation. I think in one small way, he is a microcosm of what lies ahead. He proves that the official opposition can handle the responsibilities when given them. He has acquitted himself most admirably.

I would also, naturally, like to thank the people of Cornwall for giving me the opportunity to return here as their spokesman. Before getting into the debate itself, I would like to pay tribute to my Progressive Conservative opponent of the last election, Father Rudolph Villeneuve, a man who I consider has done much for our community; a man of integrity, valour and sincerity. I am very glad to see that political defeat has not caused him any great sense of bitterness or in any way lessened his sense of community spirit, cooperation or involvement. He is actively involved in the church in our area in educational pursuits, and I congratulate him for his dedication and service to our particular community.

[11:00]

Mr. Nixon: He stuck with the church, but did he stick with the party?

Mr. Samis: Not two, just one.

I’d like to point out that in our particular riding, the “big blue machine” was able to spend $40,000 in an effort to reverse the results of the last by-election.

Mr. Peterson: Peanuts.

Mr. Samis: And when one considers that there’s no television on which they can advertise directly in our area, I think that’s almost the equivalent of the fantastic $60,000 that they spent in Carleton East, where the $60,000 man finished third. If we look at the two ridings in eastern Ontario that they lost prior to the general election, the “big blue machine” spent $100,000 to try to bring them back. In both cases they failed.

I point out that in the case of Carleton East in 1974, they ran the mayor of Ottawa; this time they decided to rely on money. Neither one worked in eastern Ontario, neither a big name nor big money and the people of eastern Ontario made their views well known. What happened in the Cornwall and Carleton East by-elections was no fluke. Both results have been confirmed, although in Carleton East it’s a different party, but it’s still the opposition.

In the case of Cornwall, 62 per cent of the people voted against the government, whereas across the province it was 64 per cent of the people. It’s very obvious that the people of eastern Ontario can no longer be taken for granted politically. It’s no longer a private, blue preserve of the Conservative government.

In 1971, there was a grand total of two opposition members in eastern Ontario, both in the city of Ottawa. From Toronto to Quebec, all along the St. Lawrence and up the Ottawa Valley, it was solid blue. In 1975 that changed. There are now eight opposition members from eastern Ontario, and they’re not confined to Ottawa. Whether it be Pembroke, Cornwall, Peterborough, Belleville or Ottawa, it’s no longer dissatisfaction in one city; it’s a general sense of dissatisfaction.

The opposition vote in our area has gone up considerably, whether it be NDP or Liberal, and I dare say next time around eastern Ontario will join the swing in the rest of the province. We want a change in eastern Ontario after 32 years. Sixty-four per cent of the people in this province voted for a change; obviously two out of three people want a change.

Mr. Reid: Only 28 per cent of them voted NDP, though, you will note.

Mr. Samis: That doesn’t matter. Who is the official opposition?

Mr. Reid: Your share of the popular vote went up about one per cent. Hansard will tell you.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes think it would be not only a good thing for this province to have a change; I think it would be good for democracy. After 33 years of the same party in power, the same political machine, I would suggest it might even be a good thing for the Conservative Party to spend some time in opposition. The humility, the extra work, the reinvigoration process and the democratization of their basic structure would be the best thing that could happen to them. Just as the opposition learned a lot in Ottawa when the federal Liberals had to spend a little time in opposition and just as our particular party spent eight years in opposition in Saskatchewan, the best thing that could happen for the Conservative Party in Ontario is to spend some time in the opposition, and I suspect that’s coming pretty soon.

I know this government’s done a lot to avoid that eventuality. I recall the budget of 1975, which I regarded as an almost exclusively political document rather than economic. I recall well the home buyers’ grants, and all the attendant publicity there, at a cost of $90 million to the taxpayers. I recall the automobile rebates, the giveaway programme there, at a cost of $45 million to the taxpayers. I remember the very temporary, transitory, expedient sales tax reduction at a cost of $330 million. I recall very vividly the corporate tax deals that cost the taxpayers $150 million.

All told, if we look at those budgetary measures, which I think were designed more for political survival and to win the election, rather than to help the people of this province, the taxpayers of this province had to pay $615 million for the Tory economic and political shenanigans of that election year. That wasn’t all.

I recall very vividly, during my short term in the last session, almost every day last spring different cabinet ministers were getting up and offering goodies all across this province. Sometimes there were two or three a day. Sometimes they were stumbling over each other to see who would get in their announcements first. But it didn’t work. They’re almost spending money as if it was going out of style or somebody had found the key to the Bank of Canada. But I would point out again that it didn’t work.

Mr. Reid: There could be only one group worse than them, and that’s the NDP.

Mr. Samis: I also recall vividly another tactic that was used, the anti-Ottawa campaign: Get the feds; hit Trudeau on anything. Almost every day, if they weren’t announcing goodies, each minister was stumbling over the other as to who would get in his licks at Trudeau or at Macdonald or at Turner, or one of the others. It was unbelievable how they would look for any excuse whatsoever just to attack the federal government and make them the bogy men. It didn’t work, Mr. Speaker.

Another tactic they tried was: “If we can’t make the feds the bad guys or the fall guys, if the goodies won’t work, let’s try and create or manufacture an issue.” So I am sure their private polls told them that people were concerned about the rise of violence in society. So we had a great crusade about violence on television, over which this government has no jurisdiction -- and they full well know it. What did they do, in tried and true federal Liberal fashion? They set up a royal commission -- the Punch and Judy show -- which travelled around the province and now, I understand, is travelling to Europe to study violence in Canada.

Mr. Nixon: Going over their budget a bit too.

Mr. Samis: Right. They are spending the taxpayers’ money recklessly. Again a pure waste of money purely for election purposes. They have nothing to do with solving the problems of our day. And they still managed to lose 23 seats; that’s not counting the four seats that have been lost since the previous election by by-elections.

I think the people of Ontario can see through what this government is up to; whether it’s bogy men, buying votes or gimmicks. The 1975 budget didn’t fool anybody and the results proved that.

Some of the features of that budget were rather interesting though, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the massive deficit. Now, I know this party has always been accused of not being uncomfortable with deficit financing; and that’s probably true. But for the Tories -- for example, my friend, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) -- to be going out on the hustings defending a deficit of $2 billion, is rank and gross heresy for any good Tory in eastern Ontario, especially in view of some of the speeches he made last year. This is alien to Toryism and Conservatism of the first form.

Mr. Ruston: Biggest waste of money there ever was.

Mr. Samis: And then I recall vividly how the former Treasurer, John White, totally avoided the use of the word deficit in this House. It was just amazing. It was cash flow, cash balance, in and out --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Good, sound, stable government; and you know it.

Mr. Samis: -- but look at the size of the deficit they have created.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Samis: This is a Tory government, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If your party was in power the deficit would be horrendous.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Cornwall has the floor.

Mr. Reid: The question is why he has.

Mr. Samis: It was a Tory government that created this huge deficit.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Why are you pushing for more spending then?

Mr. Samis: Now, I know we are constantly accused of being a party that believes in high deficits. It is rather interesting to contrast the record of this government --

Interjection.

Mr. Samis: -- with the two provinces where there are NDP governments.

Mr. Ruston: How about Barrett?

Mr. Samis: Ontario’s deficit this year is $1.2 billion.

Mr. Reid: How about British Columbia, where it will take them years to come out of that one?

Mr. Samis: Let’s look at the two governments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: It will take them years to get out from under those deficits.

Mr. Samis: Let’s take Saskatchewan, where this year they have budgeted a surplus; an NDP government with a surplus. Let’s look at the Province of Manitoba, which has no oil, no great natural resources, a deficit of only $12 million. Contrast and compare that with the $1.2 billion deficit of the Tories here, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, who is really fiscally responsible and who isn’t?

Mr. Reid: Come on, there are only a million people in Manitoba, and they are leaving rapidly because of the NDP government there.

Mr. Samis: Who has the massive debt? Who has the massive borrowing? The amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have never claimed, and probably never will, the title of being the richest, wealthiest provinces in Canada. Yet, somehow, even with their lower standard of living, and their budgetary surplus or slight deficit, they can afford a dental care plan. But this province, as wealthy as it is, cannot afford such a plan. It is amazing how we treat our people in this province.

Mr. Germa: Mismanagement.

Mr. Samis: Mismanagement and other things.

Another feature of that last budget, Mr. Speaker, was the favouritism within it. We saw very vividly where the concessions were given in terms of dollars and cents, beyond the mere electoral bribes; $410 million as a tax holiday for the big corporations.

I recall very vividly the question period and the big debate on that particular measure when the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) was asked if he could prove -- amazingly, it was done just at the time of the 1971 election; they sure know how to hand out the gifts when the election comes along -- could he prove that when this was done before it actually had created jobs. Could he cite figures? Could he share that information with the House?

We got no as an answer on both of those questions. No, he didn’t have any concrete proof. No, he couldn’t give us any statistics on how many jobs it had created.

In effect it amounts to a tax giveaway to the big corporations. And the most surprising thing of it all is some of the largest beneficiaries of that tax concession aren’t even Canadians. The benefits will go to Akron, Ohio, Washington, DC, New York City, Detroit and Chicago.

Mr. Reid: Just where all the international union funds go; same places.

Mr. Samis: Makes you wonder sometimes. I thought the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) was Liberal-Labour; sometime I’d like to hear some labour in his liberalism.

It’s the average man and woman who pay for those giveaways in the budget. The big corporations at election time get all the benefits and naturally supply the funds for the “big blue machine.” In recent disclosures from the Commission on Election Contributions and Finances, we saw who some of those big $25,000 contributors were.

In 1976 they’ve decided to change strategy. The violence, the bogy men, the giveaways, and the big budget obviously didn’t work. They had to try different strategies. And 1976 will go down as the year that the Conservatives discovered inflation, and what a saviour it has been.

It’s kind of amazing how the Premier (Mr. Davis) and every cabinet minister, who only six months ago had condemned Ottawa, in the most fearless of terms at times, have suddenly embraced Ottawa. This isn’t just a flirtation, it’s not just a mere romance, it’s not some neutral, passionless legal arrangement; it is virtual total rapture. It’s a total move, I would suggest, in a way that would, with its suddenness, intensity and fervour, sometimes make Masters and Johnson blush, given the way this government has suddenly embraced the federal government and hidden behind its skirts.

Why the change? I’m sure nobody would accuse the Premier of being a devout follower, convert or disciple of John Kenneth Galbraith. He himself has never even mentioned the name once in defending his government’s policy. It’s obvious he has latched onto the anti-inflation campaign to try to get himself out of the political dilemma that the voters and he himself have created.

Naturally, there are some very obvious values to it in terms of public service employees, teachers and public service groups and this does get him off the hook beautifully. Naturally, it’s a smart political move for him. He’s trying to regain many of those Conservative votes that went to the Liberal Party, especially in southwest Ontario. He’s trying to recast a small “c” conservative image for himself. Obviously, he’s going to try to tie in the anti inflation campaign with that small “c” conservatism.

The publication of the Henderson report and its surrounding philosophy is one that obviously he’s trying to translate as part of the overall restraint programme. It’s a conversion the sincerity of which makes you wonder. Sometimes I think it’s almost akin to someone like Dave Schultz giving an after- dinner speech on the virtues of Lady Byng, or Pierre Trudeau trying to tell us the value and virtues of wage and price controls after the 1974 election.

I noticed an interesting column by a journalist whom I respect considerably, Harold Greer, in the Montreal Star. He had some interesting comments about saving money. He said you can either cut decisively or showboat without really cutting.

“Such a government really has only two options open to it. It can slash mindlessly about in all directions on the principle of the least government the better, as is proposed by the special review committee of last November, a committee of friendly civil servants; or it can put on a great show- boating exercise of saving money, hoping the good voters will be mesmerized into thinking a penny is a pound. Not surprisingly, the Davis government has decided to showboat, and a marvellous show it has been, ever since Darcy McKeough rose in the Legislature on Dec. 11. [He takes one example.]

“Health expenditures, for example, are out of sight; not because there may be some small, unneeded hospitals about, but because the government from the start of Medicare has surrendered almost total control and direction of the health delivery system to the medical profession. As long as the sacred cow policy continues there will be no substantial cutbacks in the health budget.”

He goes on in that article to point out that the government is more interested in the cosmetic effects, the window-dressing and the political game involved, not in actually cutting expenditures as they are trying to tell the province. I really don’t think the people trust this government anymore. They’ve seen enough flip-flops. They saw a year ago a government which brought in an all-time record deficit in an attempt to win votes and then 12 months later is trying to propagandize and convert people to the virtues of restraint and cutbacks. I think the Conservative member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) said it well -- a good authority in this House, obviously -- that this government says it learned the lesson of the last election but really it hasn’t. That comes from a good, loyal Conservative member, no from a member of the opposition.

[11:15]

I look at the 1976 budget, and I don’t want to be totally partisan, because I think there were some positive things in it and I will give the government credit for that. First of all, I would congratulate the government for reducing the tax on small business from 12 to nine per cent. Naturally that’s peanuts compared to the tax concession the Tories have given the resource industries and some of the heavily mechanized industries in our society but I give them credit. It’s a step in the right direction and I am pleased to support that.

The second measure I am prepared to congratulate them on is the reduction in the civil service, something that’s long due. The Tories always accuse this particular party of being the friends and creators of red tape and bureaucracy. They have created the greatest empire of red tape and bureaucracy in the history of Canada.

The Tories from Prince Edward-Lennox are the builders of bureaucracy in this province and they know it. That’s what their Liberal opponents told them and they knew that. It was true. It makes the NDP look like pikers by comparison when we look at the size of this bureaucracy, but the fact is they are putting a limit on it and they are trying to control it; I congratulate them. In contrast to the federal government, it’s certainly an improvement. I give them credit for that.

The only thing I would like to know -- and they keep hiding the information -- is how many contract employees there are. How many people in this province are operating on a contract basis? It would be a very clever way of disguising the figures to give a very cosmetic appealing look to the so-called austerity drive.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Do you want more civil servants?

Mr. Samis: The other measure I approve of in the budget and am pleased to support is the increase in fees for uninsured drivers. I think that’s a step in the right direction. I sometimes wonder why these people should be allowed on the streets, roads and highways of Ontario if they can’t afford automobile insurance.

These three measures, I think, deserve support but I would like to point out some other areas of the budget which I feel are sadly lacking and not deserving of support.

I come from an area which has had to deal with continuing problems of unemployment, low growth and sometimes outright economic depression. The 1976 budget was a major disappointment to eastern Ontario and to my area in particular. We see over 260,000 people in this province unemployed and if we translate that into family terms and human terms, we are talking of between 800,000 and a million people suffering from unemployment. If we read the increase in the federal statistics and the equivalent provincial statistics on unemployment for the month of April, this is something which is not going to go away. The Treasurer just can’t put this one under the rug and hope for the best.

In Cornwall, for example, I noticed a variety of figures were used and I sometimes wonder about their validity. The budget says for example, that in March, 1975, there were 8,889 people on unemployment. Really what that says is that there was that number of people receiving unemployment. The actual figure for people registered was 10,118. I readily admit that everyone who is registered need not be collecting but of the government’s 8,889 figure and the 10,118 figure, I would suggest the latter is a more realistic indication of how many people were on unemployment.

In June, 1975, the real figure was 7,518 as opposed to the government figure of 6,400. In September, it was 6,640 as opposed to the government figure of 5,400; and in December, 7,214 versus the government figure of 5,887.

In January, February and March, things didn’t get much better. The figures in my particular area for January were 8,106; February 8,504; and March 8,200. In terms of percentages in my particular area we are talking of 12, 14 and 15 per cent based on the particular month. That is above the average; above the national average. It is more than twice the provincial average.

We in eastern Ontario in particular want this government to try to do more about unemployment and not follow any idea that it’s up to the private sector. I noticed an article in the Kingston Whig Standard on Jan. 6, 1976, and the headline read “Unemployment Insurance was the Fourth Largest Industry in Kingston.” Normally in eastern Ontario, Kingston is regarded as much more stable economically than many other communities.

Only three other industries in Cornwall had more people on their rolls than the UIC -- Queen’s University, the Canadian Forces Base and Dupont. To give you some indication of the unemployment problem, there were more people receiving UIC than are employed by Alcan or the Kingston General Hospital or the Frontenac Board of Education or Millhaven Fibre or the city of Kingston with its civic employees. That’s not to knock Kingston; it is just to show that unemployment is not restricted to Cornwall or to Pembroke. It is a general problem across eastern Ontario and it is something which requires far more government involvement and far more government action.

The Treasurer of Ontario says “My colleagues and I believe that the thrust of provincial policy should rely on private sector expansion to generate growth in unemployment.” We can’t accept that because we have seen that philosophy before and we have seen the results. I am sure my good friend from Prince Edward-Lennox knows the results of that particular philosophy in eastern Ontario in terms of unemployment.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Sure, you don’t want private enterprise. You have said you want to nationalize.

Mr. Samis: That’s a lot of baloney and you know it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Samis: If we had to follow the philosophy articulated by the Treasurer or the philosophy I heard expressed last year by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox --

Mr. Hodgson: Same as they did in BC.

Mr. Samis: -- our entire region in eastern Ontario could be a depressed area. We need government involvement to combat regional disparities. If we follow a laissez-faire policy or anything approaching it, the regional disparities will only be aggravated.

We need government involvement to decentralize the economic growth of this province. If eastern Ontario is ever going to get its fair share, one of the first conditions has to be a programme of decentralized development not the continuing Toronto-centred development we see. We need government involvement to get industries in places like --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You already have it.

Mr. Samis: -- Cornwall, Pembroke, Belleville, Brockville. Since we have to compete with Quebec -- I know my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Irvine) knows well the problems we have with Quebec in terms of competition -- we need special consideration. In our particular part of the province we are no longer designated as a DREE area although it still applies in the Ottawa Valley.

What is the provincial government doing to meet these special problems? At least the feds have special programmes. We may debate the merits of them but at least they have them for slow growth areas. We need government involvement to assist our textile industry and to help us reopen idle plants. It is obviously a depressing sight in eastern Ontario when you see plants which have been built within the last 10 years lying idle with big signs up, “For Sale”, “For Rent”. We can’t use them. We have the men willing to work; we have the people willing to use their skills but we have nobody willing to locate in eastern Ontario. Where are the retraining programmes for our people who are laid off, whether it be from Sylvania or whether it be in Pembroke. Where are the alternative jobs for these people?

We had an interesting example in my particular riding of what the restraint policy meant. One of the main tourist attractions in our area in addition to Upper Canada Village is the Robert H. Saunders’ power dam. When the Tories decided to have restraints they said “We will eliminate all tours at the dam to save money.” They didn’t give any consideration to the effect this would have on the tourist industry and what we would say to people coming into the area. Government brochures for 1976 had advertised free tours available at the power dam -- what would we say to these people?

It took a combined effort by the mayor, the chamber of commerce and me to convince the minister and Ontario Hydro to rescind that policy. It is just a good example of how the bureaucrats dictate a policy and then the people in small communities have to suffer and live with it and maybe dissuade the bureaucrats from that particular policy. I am sure the same thing has happened in Pembroke, Belleville, Kingston, Hawkesbury and other parts of eastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Then why do you preach bigger government?

Mr. Samis: You are the ones who created bigger government. You stand condemned for that.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You are preaching more government, more bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Samis: Unemployment hovers at around 12 per cent. When you have a figure of 12 per cent and your national average is in the six to seven per cent range, you can’t tolerate that any more because of the loss among the young people, the loss in skills and the way it affects the whole fibre of our community. It makes me wonder how they can get complacent in this province about a six per cent unemployment rate. I look at Britain, for example, and the government over there, be it Tory or Labour, considers it almost an emergency if it goes beyond three per cent. I am amazed that in Sweden they have never had unemployment beyond three per cent since 1945. We have never been close to three per cent.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s not true.

Mr. Samis: In Germany, for example, not only do they not have to worry about an unemployment figure of 12, six or three per cent, they have to go out and import workers from Portugal, Turkey, Spain and Italy to fill the jobs.

Mr. Ruston: So do we.

Mr. Samis: They can create the jobs there in a sense of partnership between labour and capital where the unions and management sit down and work out things together instead of the confrontation we see across this land and in this province.

The government has a responsibility to meet this unemployment problem, especially in eastern Ontario. We just can’t afford to leave it exclusively or primarily to the private sector to solve. There are all sorts of areas where something could be done. The most obvious one is housing, where there’s a need. Housing is a prime job creator. Everybody would admit this is an area where the government can take a very active and vital role. Yet what do we see in the budget -- less money allotted for the Housing Ministry.

In tourism in eastern Ontario, for example, there’s a crying need for a summer theatre to attract more people to Upper Canada Village and the whole Seaway valley. Things could be done to clean up the St. Lawrence River to make it more attractive for fishermen and for tourists. I recall the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) making promises that there would be some great new resort, a government resort in eastern Ontario, something on the scale of Ontario Place somewhere in the general area of Belleville. We’ve seen nothing, and we’ve heard nothing about it. The election’s over and I would suggest that promise has been filed away along with hundreds of others.

We’ve seen an idea, such as an industrial park in Spencerville which was supposed to be the government’s great sop to us in the last election; despite the fact that the present Minister of Industry and Tourism told the entire eastern Ontario area and reassured people that the government would never do such a thing. He was completely opposed to it and he couldn’t see any sense to it. Now we have the industrial park lying there. What’s going to be done with it? Who knows?

We have our dairy farmers in a difficult situation. Many of those expanded their facilities, invested money and borrowed to try to increase their quota because of some of the federal dairy policies. Now these people have overexpanded and are out on a limb and some of them, especially the new and the young ones, are in considerable difficulties.

In the particular case of the textile industry. whether it be in Cornwall or Millhaven. there’s a very particular problem with foreign competition. I will give the Minister of Industry and Tourism credit. He did take a strong stand against the federal policy and we, in this particular party, wholeheartedly endorsed the position he adopted and would really request the federal government to get off their butts and do something. We are aware of the GATT arrangements and we realize the implications, but we just can’t see this industry go down and let these people suffer the way they are.

Our people in eastern Ontario don’t want to collect welfare, don’t want to live on pogey and don’t want to sit around. They want to work. They want to live decent, honourable, respectable lives. All we ask is that the government help them achieve that particular role in society because that’s the only outlet really that will help them.

I’m especially concerned with the effect of all these restraints on employment. A number of young people in the nursing field will be coming onto this market. We’ll have another 4,000 people coming on stream this month and next month and a maximum apparently of 200 jobs available. I noticed the government member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) estimated we could have 90,000 young people unemployed this summer. If we look at our basic core of unemployment, or regional and seasonal unemployment and the nurses, plus the students, this summer doesn’t look very good. And the budget doesn’t give them much hope.

It especially bothers me in a community like my own with the young people who are so used to unemployment and wonder if there is any sense, any value or any purpose to staying where they are. Why not move to Ottawa? Why not move to Toronto? Why not move to Montreal? In effect, we lose some of our best people and some of our most educated young people. Some of the most resourceful, dynamic people leave eastern Ontario, because there isn’t enough there for them in terms of employment, lifestyle and other attractions, and obviously this just aggravates the problem. It makes it worse; it makes it linger and it makes it that much more difficult to solve.

We can’t ignore eastern Ontario. We have to help the people who want to be helped. We’re not asking for handouts, welfare or gifts. We’re just asking for our basic fair share. That’s all we want. We think Toronto’s got more than its share. We know the north has been shafted for a long time. We just want our fair share.

[11 :30]

In the budget, there are certain things that do concern me. One, obviously, is the whole concept of inequities that’s inherent in that budget. If I look at the OHIP increases, for example, there’s no question that OHIP premiums are not just a premium, they represent a tax upon the people. If we know that more than 80 per cent of the cost now of our medical services is paid out of general tax revenue, the OHIP premium and its increase represent a tax increase. I notice that the Toronto Globe and Mail, no friend of this particular party, has openly said in editorial form, that the increase in OHIP is tantamount to an increase in taxes.

It bothers me that in effect, our taxes in Ontario are being increased when six provinces in this country have no premiums whatsoever. The whole cost of medical care is financed out of general revenue --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Because Ontario funding finances it.

Mr. Samis: -- whereas we in Ontario finance it and have the people of this province paying two ways for it.

Compare the rates across the country: Ontario for a family with two children, $384; in Alberta, $138; British Columbia, $225; and Quebec, approximately $225, even with the recent increase. Why is Ontario the most expensive in the land? We are paying 45 per cent more; we are going to have fewer hospitals, fewer nurses, fewer beds and fewer services.

I notice the Globe and Mail had an interesting study. If a person earns $8,200, look how he is treated in this province. If you combine his federal tax, his provincial tax, his health care premiums, his property tax, and include his rebates and Ontario tax credits, a man earning $8,200, with a family, is now paying $1,078.

Quebec used to be known as the highest taxed province in the land. We have now surpassed that. In Quebec the same man would be paying $1,056; in New Brunswick, $958; in Nova Scotia, $948; in British Columbia, $939; in Prince Edward Island, $936; in Alberta, $785; in Saskatchewan, $754; in Newfoundland, $720; and in Manitoba, $682. This is the province of opportunity? I wonder.

We ask the workers to keep their wage increases and their demands to less than 10 per cent --

Mr. Nixon: Eight per cent.

Mr. Samis: In many cases it ends up to be eight per cent. Yet look what we are doing to them. We are increasing their OHIP rates by 45 per cent; we are increasing gasoline prices by five cents to eight cents a gallon. We have already increased their Hydro rates by 22 per cent. In many communities transit fares have gone up by 15 per cent to 40 per cent. We have allowed insurance rates to increase by 15 per cent to 40 per cent, and yet we see all-time interest rates and mortgage rates being charged to people. It really makes you wonder Mr. Speaker. Wages are being frozen, where is the justice? Where are the controls on these other vital ingredients in our economy?

If you are concerned with the whole concept of tax equality, one thing that disturbs me in this particular budget is the increasing reliance being placed on the sales tax. If you look at the budgetary charts, and the share of the overall budget that is now being garnered from the retail sales tax, in 1968-1969 the province only relied on the sales tax for 14.2 per cent of its revenue; the corporation tax generated 9.5 per cent back then; personal income tax, 17.7 per cent. If you look at the figures for last year, the retail sales tax accounted for 14.7 per cent; the corporation tax for 13 per cent. This year the projection is 17.7 per cent of our revenues will be financed out of the retail sales tax; the corporation tax, 10.4 per cent. If you look at --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Take into consideration your tax rebates.

Mr. Samis: Oh yes, oh yes.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I’ll bet you didn’t do that.

Mr. Samis: Don’t worry, don’t worry. Not everybody qualifies. Not everybody gets it, and you know that.

So if you look at the increased emphasis on the sales tax, which is the most inequitable, regressive form of taxation -- and you know that, Mr. Speaker -- if you look at the $410 million corporate tax holiday; if you look at the rate corporations pay in this province; if you look at the fact that the corporate share of the tax burden has declined from the previous year, while the sales tax has gone up, the personal income tax share has gone up, health premiums have gone up, where is the equity in the budget? Those who produce the greatest source of revenue are paying less of the overall burden. The working man, the average person, the small businessman, through their income tax are paying more.

I was rather interested in some of the figures in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, because it is always alleged that supposedly the NDP tax people out of existence.

Let’s take people earning from $8,000 to $15,000, which is the bulk of the people in our society, and their provincial taxes. In Ontario, you would be paying $328 in taxes; in Saskatchewan, you would be paying $96 in taxes. If you made $9,000 in Ontario you would be paying $409; in Saskatchewan, $177. If you made $10,000, it is $493 in Ontario, $261 in Saskatchewan. In Ontario, at $11,000, you would pay $577; in Saskatchewan, $349. If you made $12,000 in Ontario, you would be paying $665; in Saskatchewan, $433. If you made $15,000 in Ontario, you would pay $941; in Saskatchewan, $716.

It’s kind of interesting, Mr. Speaker, to look at those who make $50,000 or more. This is where the real change shows. In Ontario, you would pay $4,700 in tax; in Saskatchewan, $6,000. If you made $100,000 in this province, you would only pay $11,400 in tax; in Saskatchewan, $15,600. With the NDP government of Saskatchewan, the man who makes from $8,000 to $15,000 pays less than what he would pay in Ontario; and in Saskatchewan the rich, those who can pay, do pay more.

If you look at the overall tax rate -- Ontario sales tax, seven per cent; Saskatchewan, five per cent. The income tax rate in Ontario is lower. 30.5 per cent versus 40 per cent. Health premiums in Ontario are $384 for a family; Saskatchewan, nil. Corporation tax, nine to 12 per cent in Ontario; 12 per cent in Saskatchewan.

The gas tax is 19 cents a gallon in Ontario; 15 cents a gallon in Saskatchewan. The diesel tax is 25 cents a gallon in Ontario; 21 cents a gallon in Saskatchewan. The cigarette tax is 17¾ cents in Ontario for a pack of 25; 15 cents in Saskatchewan.

Interestingly enough, of those provinces with provincial debts to cover, Saskatchewan has the lowest per capita provincial debt in Canada. Now if they want to talk about oil, that’s a very new feature, because Saskatchewan has been a have-not province.

Let’s move east to Manitoba and see if Saskatchewan is all that different. Let’s take our friend again, who makes from $8,000 to $15,000. Let’s compare how he is treated in Manitoba as to how he is treated in Ontario. If he makes $8,000 in the Province of Ontario, he would pay $328 in tax; in Manitoba he would receive a tax credit of $221, for a total difference of $549 between Manitoba and Ontario. For the man earning $9,000, the difference is $524. For the man earning $10,000, the difference is $499. For the man earning $11,000, the difference is $474; and at the $12,000 mark, the difference is $448.

Once again, it is very clear that the average person gets a better deal with this tax system than they do in the Province of Ontario.

If we take our friends at the upper level of $50,000, obviously the breaks work out to the benefit of the rich in Ontario. If he made $50,000 in Ontario, he would be paying $1,924 less in tax. If he made $100,000, he would be paying $6,418 less in tax. Again, the working man, the average man, gets hit. The man at the top gets all the breaks.

If we compare the overall tax structure, sales tax in Ontario is seven per cent; in Manitoba, five per cent. Income tax is 30.5 per cent; Manitoba, 42 per cent. But I would point out that even with 42 per cent, it means less taxes for the average man.

Health premiums, $384 in Ontario; nil in Manitoba. Corporation tax, nine to 12 per cent in Ontario; 13 to 15 per cent in Manitoba. Gas tax, 19 cents a gallon in Ontario; 18 cents a gallon in Manitoba. Diesel tax 25 cents a gallon in Ontario; 21 cents a gallon in Manitoba. Cigarette tax, 17.75 cents in Ontario; 20 cents in the province of Manitoba.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that speaks pretty clearly for itself. Where our particular party has been in power the greatest benefits accrue to the average person and the burdens are placed upon those who can afford them unlike this province, where the greatest beneficiaries are those at the top; and those who have to pay the greatest share of it are the average people.

I think the working people realize this. There are too many corporate ripoffs. If we talk about welfare and the problems of welfare, one of the greatest areas of welfare and one of the greatest ripoffs is not among the people who supposedly collect welfare and go down and buy beer and watch television. It’s at the very top, with the wealthy, the powerful and the privileged.

One thing that distresses me in this whole situation, Mr. Speaker, is the way our working poor are being treated; not the people on welfare, but the individuals who are working but poor.

Who do I refer to? I refer specifically to people who have no union to protect them. They may work in small factories; they may work in stores, restaurants, cafeterias, hotels, bars, movie theatres, cleaning firms, leather factories or some small textile factories. These people have no form of protection and I look at how this particular province treats them.

These aren’t welfare bums. These aren’t people looking for a ripoff. These are people willing to work. These are the people who need protection from exploitation. Many of them are new Canadians and aren’t familiar with the labour laws and their basic rights in our society. I look at our minimum wage policy in this province and I think how we’ve treated our people is a complete and utter disgrace.

It’s amazing that last December, at Christmas time, the Province of Quebec, which has a much lower standard of living and which has traditionally been regarded as a low wage area compared to this province, was paying its minimum wage workers 16 per cent more than the Province of Ontario. If we look at the figures as of June 1 this year the Province of BC, even with a Social Credit government, with its philosophy of laissez-faire free enterprise, will be paying its workers at the minimum wage level approximately 15 per cent more than the Province of Ontario.

Saskatchewan, never regarded as a high wage area, will be paying its people 16 per cent more at the minimum wage level. Alberta, a Tory government, not particularly famous for its sympathy towards labour, will be paying its minimum wage workers four per cent more than the Province of Ontario.

One that really fascinates me is that at the beginning of this year the Province of Newfoundland, the poorest province in this country, had a minimum wage level higher than that of the Province of Ontario, the so-called wealthiest province in this dominion.

Mr. Germa: Repeat that for the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson).

Mr. Samis: The Province of Newfoundland had a higher minimum wage than the Province of Ontario on Jan. 1 this year. If that doesn’t speak to the shame and disgrace of our minimum wage policy in this province, I don’t know what does.

The government may argue that the wage did go up in March. Things have changed. Ontario now pays $2.65. We’re moving ahead. The question is let’s compare Ontario’s record again with the other provinces. Did members know that in BC, they will be paying 35 cents an hour more as of June? In Alberta, 15 cents an hour more. The Province of Quebec, 25 cents an hour more than Ontario. Saskatchewan, 15 cents an hour more than Ontario. The federal government is paying 25 cents an hour more than Ontario.

We used to be No. 1. Now we’re satisfied with being No. 6 and these are obviously the people who are least able to protect themselves. We tell them, “That’s what you’re going to accept, like it or not. Your gas goes up; your OHIP goes up; your hydro goes up; but you should be satisfied with $2.65. Look at what we’re doing for you. Aren’t we ahead of the Americans? Aren’t we ahead of some other provinces?” That’s not good enough when were No. 6.

Mr. Germa: It’s better than Bangladesh; the minister is satisfied.

Mr. Samis: This province used to be a leader --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Try New York State and Ohio.

Mr. Samis: Here we go, the reference to Ohio. It’s amazing how we used to be ahead of the other provinces. Now when we fall behind, we start comparing ourselves with certain American states. We never competed with them before. We never had to worry about them before. All of a sudden, now we do.

Hon. B. Stephenson: If we had an increase in productivity, we might be able to increase the minimum wage.

Mr. Samis: That’s not the question we’re talking about and the minister knows it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, no.

Mr. Samis: If the Province of Quebec can raise its rate higher than Ontario’s when it has productivity problems, greater labour stoppages, and greater walkouts and more time lost --

Mr. Lupusella: That’s why we have so many injured workers in this province.

Mr. Samis: -- that’s no excuse to hide behind. Ontario is falling behind.

I can understand the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett). He’s not regarded as a friend of labour and he likes the idea that the people in the tourist industry should work for even less than the minimum wage. Somehow he was able to convince the Minister of Labour not to pay those people in bars, for example, $2.65 an hour. I quote from a press release from the minister on March 29, “It’s a concept I’ve been working for, with the support of tourism and the hospitality industry since becoming Minister of Industry and Tourism in 1973.”

He’s honest about it. He doesn’t want the minimum wage for these people at the same level. But for any minister in this province to accede to that situation in which people in that industry are paid even less than the minimum wage, is a shame and a disgrace.

[11:45]

I noticed that the study of Mr. Kola Adeniji for the Ontario Federation of Labour proved that the minimum wage for many people in this province is their basic and only protection. It’s the bell-wether for the industry and in many, many cases the employers’ claims that they can’t afford it, they would have to close, they would have to lay off people, have been proven wrong. These people have a right to live in dignity. We are not going to consign them to poverty. We want them to participate in our society and share in the material benefits and social progress of our particular society. This is something that really disturbs me.

Another thing that disturbs me for the average working man again are those OHIP increases, because it is a tax. If we look at municipal taxes, again the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has played a very clever game. He claims in his budget there was no tax increase, but the taxpayer knows better. When he gets his bill from the city, from the school boards, he knows that it is because of the provincial government’s policy vis-à-vis the municipalities that his taxes are going up. Sure the fall guys are the aldermen, the mayors and the school board trustees, but anybody knows that the real blame lies right here in this Legislature, with the Treasurer and his budget and the policies implicit in that.

The Edmonton agreement obviously shows how much the taxpayers, as well as the reeves, mayors and municipalities, can trust this government. The Edmonton agreement obviously is a piece of paper that means little more than what’s on it and even that is not followed, and so whereas increases provincially are going up by 15.5 per cent, we are seeing municipalities being starved out and property taxes going up.

If I look at the situation in eastern Ontario regarding farmers, Mr. Speaker, things aren’t all that much better either. They have been ignored for a long time. We are used to the fact that the government won’t decentralize. We are used to the fact that small farms are continually going out of business and there are fewer and fewer people on the farms.

I look, for example, at my particular former county of Stormont. I look at the figures from 1971 to 1975 -- let’s put it back to 1966 to 1975 -- 38.9 per cent fewer farms in the county of Stormont, more non-resident people. Total farm population down 51.6 per cent; total farm area down 23.1 per cent; improved farm land down 25.8 per cent. Lands under cultivation down 29.1 per cent; improved pasture down 21.9 per cent. Where is the progress? Obviously there is none.

The farmers are suffering as much as anyone else, especially in eastern Ontario where many of the farms are small, in some cases marginal. Many of these farmers looked with great hope to Queen’s Park. They heard the idea -- they heard the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union endorse it -- of a farm income stabilization programme. This could guarantee them survival. This could help them out.

They heard the previous minister and the Treasurer both promise in the 1975 budget: “You will have a guaranteed annual income programme. It’s in the budget. It’s government policy. You will have it.”

They never got it. Why? “It’s all the fault of the feds. We have to wait for Eugene Whalen to straighten things out before we can move in.”

That didn’t stop the Province of British Columbia. That didn’t stop the Province of Quebec, but Ontario -- we don’t get any action. We fall further behind.

Now we have a new minister. Hope for change? Some hope. Again, he promises: “Yes, this government supports the principle of a farm income plan.” The budget again showed the shallowness of that promise in terms of what’s committed.

It’s no wonder, Mr. Speaker, people don’t trust this government any more, and some people don’t even trust the minister himself in terms of his credibility. I notice he has started a campaign to try and disprove the contentions of the leader of this party about the amount of farm acreage that’s going out of production. He is trying to claim now: “Oh, there may be 26 acres an hour going out of production, although I dispute that. Seven acres an hour are really going back into production so 26 doesn’t really count, it is not accurate.”

But I notice someone who does know something about farming, Mr. Gordon Hill, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, refuted what the minister said. I quote from Farm and Country newspaper, May 11, and an article entitled “Newman Can’t Hide Behind Faulty Land Figures:”

“The government believes that the marketplace should be left to operate as much as possible. Isn’t that what got us into our present uncomfortable situation? Plans should be protected by the provincial Legislature. To burden elected municipal officials with the entire responsibility to resist demands for changes in the plan is unfair and unrealistic.”

I realize that some of this refers to a land-use policy but it gets on to the other subject.

“Pressure to alter the plans to accommodate vociferous residents and to increase tax revenues will be unbearable.”

So first of all, the federation doesn’t accept the provincial policy of laissez-faire in the question of land use. The federation rejects that. Then he gets on to figures:

“Unfortunately the figures used by Newman leave the impression there really isn’t anything to worry about. He cited the increased acreage of cultivated crops, such as corn, grain, and so on, to imply that land came back to farming from the period 1971-1974 by seven acres per hour. Actually this land did not come back. Most of it was switched from pasture and hay to cultivated crops. Some land owned by developers and speculators temporarily returned to crops but as soon as development is practical this land will grow houses and apartments, not corn and potatoes.

“He further stated that 15 million extra acres lay waiting for the plough. This land is mostly under forest, all of it must be drained and it lies almost entirely in areas where weather conditions are less favourable for growing crops. Some 11 million acres are mostly class 4 land, which can be only 50 per cent as productive as class 1 even with the same climate. It would probably cost $12 billion to remove the forest, prepare for tillage and drain this land and where would the funds come from?

“[He says in concluding the article:] This issue should rise above a numbers game; there should be debate on the use of resources. This can happen only if the government determines and makes known the quantity of food and land resources available. The material and the system are available; it must be done at once.”

Even the minister has trouble convincing people in the federation of the veracity of his figures and his policies.

Very briefly, since time is fleeting, I just want to mention two final areas. One is Community and Social Services. I think the leader of this party has done an excellent job in pointing out the fallacies of the arguments and the policies being implemented by the minister. I know the minister was baptized Iron Jim, by his colleague, the kind-hearted, benevolent member and Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) at a meeting in the minister’s riding. This is a man who is supposed to be socially aware and sensitive to the problems of people. This is a man who, I think, is one of the most right-wing Tories in this entire Legislature. He is a man who could probably make the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) look like a progressive in comparison. He is a man who probably is more at home administering Elizabethan poor laws than the complex social and community laws that we have in this province, and a man who, if I recall his speeches last year in this House, seemed much more comfortable with the 18th and 19th century than he ever did with the 20th century.

I noticed in the early stages of his restraint campaign that he talked about getting people to work and getting at these welfare people who were exploiting the system. I happened to do a little check in his particular riding in the community of Napanee, just to see what the job situation was like and how many people were registered for unemployment. Some of the figures I found very interesting.

In July, 1975, in Napanee at the Manpower office, 1,536 were registered for work. How many jobs were there for those 1,500 people? There were 95. In August, 1,700 were registered and 115 jobs. If we move up to December, 1,600 people were registered for work, and 42 jobs. In January, 1976, 1,863 people were registered, and 72 jobs. In February, 1,889 were on the registration and 75 jobs were available.

Even in the minister’s own riding the question isn’t so much of people ripping off the system or abusing it as the lack of jobs. If I look at the cutbacks in my own community and how they have affected the Children’s Aid Society, regardless of what the minister says, it does mean cutbacks and it does mean a curtailment of services.

Our particular Children’s Aid Society had a bare-bones budget, a 17.8 per cent increase to operate. I point out in the case of the Stormont, Glengarry and Dundas Children’s Aid Society that it has the lowest percentage of clerical and social workers per child in care in Ontario. The ratio of children to social service workers is 16.8 to 1. Hardly any other society in this province pays out less for looking after children in terms of boarding homes and foster parents, and they have made cuts already. They have the second lowest cost per average child in the entire province, and yet the minister is telling them 5.5 per cent doesn’t mean cutbacks.

We’re already in a special situation, as I pointed, in terms of special problems caused by artificially high unemployment. Salaries obviously have increased. The cost of boarding young people, of paying the foster parents, have to increase. They do have more teenagers to deal with. They could use 15 more specialized foster homes. We keep telling them 5.5 is an increase, that it’s not a cutback and it’s not going to hurt them. As the people down there have said, that’s complete and utter nonsense.

I think one way to illustrate the effect of the cuts in our particular area is when a constituent called me up one morning and said, “What are they trying to do, George?” I said, “You should ask the minister.” He said, “Well, I don’t care what they do, but if they want to cut out family service counselling in our area, if they want to reduce it, let them go ahead. All I will do is book into the hospital, spend the weekend there at a cost of $150 a day, and the province can pay. I don’t give a damn. If they are going to cut it out, I will go there anyway.”

So there we are; we are cutting back services. But in effect, if you look at the overall cost of it, it is going to cost us far more, whether it be special services or in the future, the cutbacks aren’t going to work -- and the restraint policy is a farce.

In terms of hospitals, Mr. Speaker, I won’t talk about the whole rationale that has been gone into it. I won’t talk about the $60 million spent on the private labs. I won’t talk about the economic impact of those closures on small communities, I won’t talk about the miscalculations by the Ministry in the case of The Great War Memorial Hospital in Perth. I won’t talk about the short-sightedness of some of the actual cuts in terms of the alternate costs for facilities.

The one thing I will talk about in closing, Mr. Speaker, is the way the whole programme has been carried out. It has been an insult to the people of Ontario. There was no confidence displayed in the people in the hospitals, on the boards, and the district health councils and in the community. They were just completely ignored and steamrollered. There was no consultation, no input.

I recall very vividly being at the mass meeting in Clinton and how those people felt that the ministry had almost lied to them six months previously. I know in my particular area, one particular hospital was told to eliminate 35 beds in the equivalent of 35 days. For the two hospitals combined, 75 beds had to be eliminated in 35 days. Just ridiculous. Just stupid. Just contemptuous and arrogant.

Fortunately, because of pressures from the hospitals, and possibly some from myself, that regulation was relaxed in terms of our particular hospital. But why wasn’t that done in advance? Why wasn’t there any consultation? The two hospitals in our particular area were already working together on a voluntary basis with the co-operation of the ministry to try to reduce the number of actual beds in the community. Yet they get this boomerang thrown by the bureaucrats in Toronto. It was not brought up in the Legislature, not approved by the Legislature -- done while we were adjourned. They ask themselves, “Where is democracy? Where do people count in this government? What do they care for us?”

I noticed in the Toronto Star on May 18, even the doctors were outraged by what they referred to as the “Gestapo-like tactics” being used by the minister, travelling around the province with his blank sheet and telling them, “You are next on my list.” It is an outrage.

Mr. Speaker, we have the AIB in Ottawa -- the Anti-Inflation Board. I would suggest that the people of Ontario are suffering from an AIB. It is not the Anti-Inflation Board; it is arrogance, insensitivity and bureaucracy. The people of Ontario have lost confidence in this government. The people want a change. A total of 66 per cent voted for a change. Ontario needs a change. The sooner the better.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

The Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973;

An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975 (2nd Session);

An Act respecting the City of Windsor;

An Act respecting the Township of West Carleton;

An Act respecting the Township of Bosanquet.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again and speak as the member for that great and historical riding of Victoria-Haliburton, and to express again my appreciation to the people for giving to me the opportunity to represent them here at Queen’s Park, and to give to them the liaison which I think all constituencies should have in dealing with government today.

I want to compliment and congratulate the Speaker on his election. He is a gentleman whom I have known for a long period of time, and he has certainly made a very great contribution to the political life of this province. I also want to extend my congratulations to the Deputy Speakers, the members for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith), for the very fair and efficient way in which they carry out their responsibilities. And also congratulations to the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton), who is presently in the Speaker’s chair, and who is a man of great stature in many ways in this House.

[12:00]

I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Cornwall on his presentation today. I hope after his address today that he doesn’t miss the plane he is trying to make, and I don’t miss my bus.

Mr. Samis: I apologize for over-extending my remarks.

Mr. Eakins: It was an excellent address. His presence here is sort of a compliment to the people of the county of Victoria and the town of Lindsay because these communities helped prepare him for his future service to the people of this province. The hon. member is well and favourably remembered from when he was on staff at the Brock High School in Cannington in the years of 1965 to 1966, I believe, and 1966 to 1967.

The member did not have to move to another area of the province to find employment, which is one of the problems in many cases in the Victoria and Haliburton counties which I represent and is one which has been discussed many times in this House. It is a problem many of our young people have; they have to leave the area in order to find employment.

Mr. Samis: Let me say I have good memories of my days in Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. Eakins: I’m glad to hear that.

Mr. Samis: I am still cognizant of the problems you are bringing up.

Mr. Eakins: Thank you.

Many pages of documents have been produced and distributed about the various areas of the province. What really must and should take place, I believe, is balanced growth in the Province of Ontario. There is so much talk and planning about packing people along the lakeshore in Ontario that there are many areas of the province which are feeling forgotten. I believe that before we reach a crisis stage and end up like the cities to the south of us -- with great employment problems; social problems; transportation and housing problems -- we must consider the needs of the other interesting areas of the Province of Ontario.

I’ve heard many members on various occasions in this House talk about the exodus of their young people to the Metro area. I can tell members it is a very real problem. It is unfortunate indeed that these young people cannot live, work and raise a family in the areas mainly of their choice. I can tell members that there are many areas of the province which do not want to be great growth areas or another Metro but simply want some good planning and development, some encouragement and, in other words, an occasional shot in the arm.

In the county of Haliburton, for instance, if it were not for the truckers and the lumbering operations in the Harcourt-Wilborforce area the people would be in very bad shape indeed. One of the reasons I fought so hard for the truckers and their PCV licences under the new legislation was to make sure that people were not having to operate in one small area where there is very little work and so that they can operate in several PCV areas across the province and have the opportunity to improve their livelihood.

Tourism is another area we are very interested in in this part of Ontario. Many of the tourist people become discouraged because it’s very difficult to be in an area which needs some incentive, some help for small businessmen and for the tourist operators. They look down here to Toronto and they see Ontario Place, which is subsidized by about $4 million by the taxpayers of Ontario and they wonder when they are going to get a little extra incentive in their area in the Kawartha Lakes.

I can say that I have had excellent cooperation from the hon. Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and from his staff. They have been most helpful, most cooperative and I want to compliment them for this. They certainly offer much advice and help to many of the business and tourism areas. I would like to say that one thing they should do more of is to advertise their services sufficiently so that more people can take advantage of this service.

If there is one ministry I find the most frustrating to deal with in the government -- I’ve had good co-operation, I must say, from most ministries -- it has to be the Ministry of the Environment. We hear today so much talk about municipalities polluting rivers and lakes and not keeping up to standard. I can tell members through my experience of my own riding, that many municipalities are ready, willing and able to do the job but they are being frustrated by the Ministry of the Environment. I speak of the town of Lindsay, which has spent three years trying to enlarge its lagoons and it is only lately that we have been able to get this on the rails and get it moving.

Mr. Nixon: Private bills committee will help.

Mr. Eakins: I can say also that the minister is in receipt of a letter from the municipality of Anson, Hindon and Minden, which was encouraged to plan eight years ago for a water works and sewage disposal system, and is not much further ahead than it was eight years ago. I can only say to the minister and his people that this is a great tourist area and these people do not want to pollute the lakes. They want to provide water and sewer service to the people of the municipalities and to the tourist people. They are just being frustrated at every turn, and I hope that shortly something will happen in this ministry to give the people the development and support that they need to upgrade their service.

I want to speak briefly on OHIP and the health service generally. I realize the increased OHIP premiums have been discussed a number of times in this House, but I feel I must add my own voice to those who have protested against this unfair burden that has been placed on the shoulders of so many people in the province.

The government has taken the attitude that this enormous increase in OHIP premiums, to $192 for single coverage and $384 for family coverage per year, will not create any real hardship for the people of Ontario. This is obviously an unrealistic assessment of the situation, and it would appear that once again the government has taken an ad hoc decision without giving serious consideration to its consequences for its citizens. The only explanation would be that the government is indeed fully aware of the implications but has ruthlessly decided to ignore the hardship which the increase in premiums will cause.

I am aware that many people are involved in group plans for Medicare with considerable employer contributions, and that some of these groups or corporations are able to write off the increased premiums on their tax returns. However, there are many non-corporate OHIP groups, such as municipal workers, school board employees, hospital workers and government employees. There are also thousands of individuals who will be forced to pay the entire OHIP premium themselves. Unfortunately, many of these people are in the lower income brackets.

The attention of this House has already been drawn to the recent story in the Toronto Globe and Mail about the man earning $150 a week who has to pay the full $384 annually for medical coverage on his family. There are obviously many other people in the same position, and to say there is no hardship involved here because of the increased premiums is patently untrue. From the government’s actions in recent months, one would almost assume that provincial hospitals and municipalities are to be made the whipping boys for past extravagance on the part of these successive governments.

The Ministry of Health budget has grown enormously in recent years and, in an attempt to reduce overheads, the government has embarked upon a scheme to close hospitals in the province. No consideration was given to the needs of the surrounding communities or the service which the hospitals concerned had been providing. There were no alternative proposals put forward, such as reducing the number of beds in several hospitals of the areas, while issuing guidelines to follow, which would enable all hospitals to operate more efficiently and economically in an attempt to preserve hospital facilities.

In fact, there was no prior consultation with the hospital administrations. Community protests were ignored, as were the objections of the members of this Legislature. A divisional court has ruled that the closing of four hospitals is out of order and the government has indicated that this ruling may be turned aside at a later date. The increase in OHIP premiums means a further burden is placed on hospital budgets because, being non-corporate, hospitals are not eligible for the write-offs cited by Treasurer.

As for municipalities, they have been led to believe by former Treasurer John White, in the much-quoted Edmonton commitment, that transfer payments would increase at the rate of the increase in provincial revenue. Yet this government has wriggled out of this commitment, and transfer payments this year are only increased by 8.9 per cent compared with the increase in provincial revenue of 19.4 per cent.

Municipal budgets, too, will be strained by the increase in OHIP premiums for their employees. Perhaps hospital budgets and municipal budgets have become over-inflated in recent years, but there was no previous attempt on the part of the government to work with hospitals and municipalities to restrain those expenditures.

If it comes to that, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and the provincial government has been one of the chief offenders when it comes to extravagance and overspending. The Treasurer was quite proud of his budget, I understand, but surely this pride was a little misplaced. Certainly he avoided the projected $2-billion deficit, but is this deficit of $1.25 billion something to brag about, when one considers that Ontario for years has been one of the wealthiest provinces in Confederation?

Are we supposed to accept the fact that the near 50 per cent increase in OHIP premiums was inevitable in view of inflation? This is nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and you and I both know it. The increases could have been avoided, or at least reduced, if bureaucratic inefficiency had been eliminated and administrative extravagance cut back. The almost 50 per cent increase in OHIP premiums was no more inevitable, or beyond provincial government control, than the close to half a billion dollars spent last year on the pre-election vote-buying goodies -- the two per cent reduction in sales tax, the first-time home buyers’ grants, and automobile sales tax rebates.

If the Treasurer in his ivory tower believes that the government’s fiscal policies won’t cause hardships to the people of Ontario, perhaps he should have some of his Treasury experts check out the situation for a cross-section of families in the middle-to-low-income bracket. Let them take into consideration a family man, forced to pay $384 a year for OHIP premiums, possibly increased Blue Cross payments, high property taxes because of the cutbacks in transfer payments, inflated hydro rates to cover expansionary development on the part of this government-sponsored Frankenstein’s monster. At the same time, this man is unlikely to receive an increase in salary to compensate for his rising expenses, because this government has accepted, without reservation, the jurisdiction of the federal Anti-Inflation Board. This budget will cause no hardship, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) says. Such a statement is complete nonsense, and he knows it.

I want also to refer to the Browndale situation, which is very current and has been under discussion, in our party at least, for a long period of time. As you know, Mr. Speaker, our leader and members of the opposition have raised questions in the House concerning the Browndale homes organization. There have been allegations that John Brown, the founder of this group, controlled some of the property leased by the organization to house approximately 300 mentally disturbed children in group homes across the province, for which the government pays upwards of $64 a day towards the treatment and housing of each child, with the annual government bill for the programme amounting to something over $7 million.

It would seem the government is unwilling to deal adequately with the problems which have come to light in connection with the Browndale organization. No progress has been made in the investigation of the situation that has been brought to the attention of this House on a number of occasions. According to an article in the Globe and Mail on May 18, neither the Ministry of Health nor Browndale (Ontario) knows how much longer 16 emotionally disturbed children will remain in Browndale’s four Peterborough homes, which have been designated by a ministry official as unsafe and overcrowded.

Last month, the ministry was assured by the organization that three new houses, which had been leased in Peterborough, would be brought up to Ministry of Health and fire safety standards by May 1. The 16 children concerned were scheduled to be moved as soon as the houses had been approved by a newly appointed advisory committee on Browndale homes in Peterborough and the necessary licenses issued. However, on May 17, according to ministry officials, no applications for licences had been submitted, and I understand that it normally takes something like four to six weeks for the government to give approval once applications for these licences have been submitted.

[12:15]

We feel we are completely justified in pressing the government to investigate the operations of Browndale. Surely this government must agree that any programme that is attempting to deal with an issue as important as children’s mental health must be investigated without delay when so many suspicious circumstances have become public. These children must be protected and this must be our first consideration. For the ministry to take the attitude that nothing can be done about the complaints of private individuals regarding these homes because Browndale is a private organization is ludicrous and irresponsible. Moreover, how can an organization be described as private when it is funded from the provincial Treasury to the extent of more than $7 million.

Critics of the Browndale organization have been told, you would not want to see the entire programme closed down, would you? Implicit in this comment is the bald threat that, if criticism is carried to an extreme, the programme would not only be investigated but possibly phased out altogether. In other words, this is a quite unprincipled attempt to make critics feel guilty, that because of their justifiable criticism they might be responsible for depriving mentally disturbed children of valuable assistance. Some people might be left with the feeling that this is the kind of pressure which one might expect from a questionable element involved in some kind of a racket, rather than a responsible attitude on the part of government officials who have been approached by concerned citizens.

Why is the government so concerned to protect the interests of the Browndale organization? If everything is above board and the allegations which have been made are inaccurate or unjustified, then surely an investigation would clear the air and satisfy all concerned. On the other hand, if Browndale directors are taking advantage of the situation at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer, if these mentally disturbed children are being cared for in conditions which are less than satisfactory, then these matters must be put right without delay.

I just want to refer to a paragraph in a letter which has been well circulated to the ministry and others from a lady in Orillia who writes a very interesting letter and who has been connected with the Browndale organization there. I just want to read this to you, Mr. Speaker:

“There is a very huge discrepancy between the way things are talked about and should be and the way in which things are. The Browndale model has disintegrated and got lost in the shuffle of continual staff change. The administration has been aware of this and has done little to remedy the situation. When questions were asked of the senior people and director, the questions were turned around to put you on the defensive. That is, “Do you really want to be here?” [This was] a threat by many people’s standards and enough to make you stop asking questions, if you really do want to work there with the children and try to fulfil the two-year commitment you originally make. This is only a moral commitment. It is taken seriously when you think in terms of the children who do not need another person to go away from their lives.”

We can see the very dedicated people who have worked in the Browndale organization and I feel that this government owes these people and others to clear up this situation and to put things right.

Mr. Nixon: It should be run by the province.

Mr. Eakins: Once again I would ask the government when we may expect the results of the inquiry into the activities of Browndale and exactly what is happening with respect to the organization’s homes in Peterborough.

I want to make reference to the problem of the liquor store workers. The Ontario liquor store workers have been trying to persuade this government to confirm an arbitration award which would give them a 30 per cent pay boost over two years. This award was not, however, sanctioned by the government back in February and was subsequently forwarded to the Anti-Inflation Board which slashed the first-year increase to 11.3 per cent from 20 per cent. Opposition members have questioned the government on a number of occasions as to why these negotiations commenced more than a year ago have not reached a satisfactory conclusion and why the arbitration agreement was apparently opposed by the chief negotiator for the LCBO at the Anti-Inflation Board, etc.

Also, my colleague from Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) has questioned the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) about the attitude taken by the government with respect to the arbitration award and the apparent possibility that the arbitration section is severable from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. There is great inequity involved in dealing with statutory awards as opposed to collective agreements. It would seem the government is depriving employees of the right to compensation under the statute while still maintaining that they have no right to an appropriate collective agreement.

The Attorney General’s contention at the time that the federal anti-inflation legislation is paramount during the term of the agreement between the province and the federal government is obviously unsatisfactory to the members of the Legislature and to the LCBO workers. The liquor board workers are in a very difficult position and surely it is time for the government to deal honestly with the problem, rather than be hiding behind the skirts of the federal legislation.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that recently my leader brought to the attention of this House the fact that the company which moved Ontario Hydro’s operations into its new headquarters on University Ave. may have won the moving contract because it planned to pay wages below the union scale. This company, Tippet-Richardson Ltd., was the third lowest bidder of the 11 in competition and the two lower bidders were too small to undertake the job.

This move took more than eight months and cost something in the region of $230,000, and there was a clause in the tender which required companies to bid on the basis of paying workers $6.15 an hour, but apparently Tippet-Richardson were paying $3.30 or $3.70 an hour. The difference in labour costs, amounting to $100,000, would have been a major factor in permitting the company to submit a lower bid, knowing all the time that lower wages would be paid.

The minister informed the House an investigation is being carried out into this matter, but confirmed that the labour requirements of the tender were not fully met. Our contention is that the whole tendering process must be called into question when one of the competing companies is able to bid on a basis different from other companies and that the Attorney General, in view of the fact that this contract has been breached, should look into the possibility of charges being laid under a section of the Criminal Code.

There have been many problems in the past over government tenders, or lack of public tendering of government contracts. There should be no favouritism or patronage involved in this kind of thing and the government should make absolutely sure that all bidders compete on an equal basis. If present legislation is not adequate, then we must make sure that it is changed to close possible loopholes for inequities or unfair bias. However, in this instance, our prime concern has to be the injustice to the workers who had to work below the union scale.

I want to mention too, Mr. Speaker, the problem of the public health nurses. The public health nurses in Haliburton, Victoria and Northumberland were locked out of their offices earlier this month. They had been working without a contract since Jan. 1 and their negotiator has said they are quite willing to continue working. The health unit on the other hand stated the nurses were being locked out because the unit had gone to its maximum with the latest offer. The nurses have been asking for raises ranging from 14 to 18 per cent in their bid for parity with hospital nurses, while the health unit has offered seven per cent.

The provincial government maintains it cannot influence these negotiations or intervene in any way. However, surely something could be done to bring about an early and amicable settlement. The province pays 75 per cent of the tri-county health unit budget. Incidentally, the unit is composed of seven members, three appointed by the Northumberland council, two by the Victoria council, one by Haliburton council and one by the Ontario government. It is true that the lockout decision was unanimous, which is a clear indication that the member appointed by the government supported the unit’s action.

On March 18 the Ontario Nurses Association issued a statement on the situation and called for justice for Ontario public health nurses. The association said good-faith bargaining for nurses in public health units for 1976 is practically non-existent in this province and that local boards of health refuse to bargain beyond eight to 10 per cent guidelines, as set out by the Ministry of Health in Ontario, in spite of the long-standing historical relationship that exists between hospital and public health nurse salaries.

The association accused employers of hiding under the new-found monetary shelter and of unilaterally ignoring the intent of the Act that provides for special consideration for groups with historical relationships in order that these groups do not suffer undue hardships because of the timing of the anti-inflation guidelines. The association contends that with the cutbacks in health and social service in Ontario the services of public health nurses will be more essential than ever, but with the current depressed salaries there will be no incentive for nurses to enter or remain in the public health field.

I know that time is getting on and perhaps there are others who wish to speak but I would just like to close by saying to the members of this House, on behalf of the warden of the county of Victoria, who is also the reeve of Bobcaygeon, that this is their centennial year up in this great part of the province. This is a great summer and winter vacation area. I know there is great hospitality being planned for the people of Ontario who visit this great area of Bobcaygeon this summer. I just want to take this opportunity of inviting the members of the House, their families and friends to visit this great village of Bobcaygeon during its centennial year.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity personally and on behalf of my constituents to congratulate you and wish the very best on your reappointment as Speaker of the House and to say that I look forward to the time after June 12 when I will have a new relationship with you in that I will be the uncle of your grandson Travis. I must say that during the past few months I have come to know many of your constituents and neighbours much better.

Mr. Reid: You are trying to get some experience in those things. You are observing closely now, are you?

Hon J. R. Smith: I would be remiss if I did not also take this opportunity to thank the electors of Hamilton Mountain for returning me last October as their member. It was indeed a well-fought campaign in that constituency. I would particularly like to thank the Liberal candidate, my neighbour, Mr. Ray C. Edwards, a fine Christian gentleman, who fought a very good campaign. It was a good fight in Hamilton Mountain. I am pleased to see that when the election finances were finally published that constituency was not retained, as was very evident, by the amount of money spent in the campaign but rather by the hard work and dedication of friends and Conservative workers in that constituency.

The city of Hamilton and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth are over the threshold of many new and positive changes. Any visitor to the downtown core of our city cannot help but be impressed by the manifestation of those changes and, in particular, the development of Lloyd D. Jackson square and presently the construction of the provincial trade centre, the new Hamilton Art Gallery and so on. Hamilton has come of age and is going to be one of the most exciting places in which to live in this province and nation.

I would also like to commend the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) who has come forward with the proposal that the people of Hamilton-Wentworth should undertake by public subscription to build an arena which should be located in the downtown core of our city. I think the hon. member’s idea has great merit because one thing about Hamiltonians is their co-operative efforts in support of public ventures. We have a theatre auditorium superior to any other such facility in Ontario, entirely raised by public subscription, the majority of the moneys coming from payroll deductions in the various plants. The people of Hamilton have similarly been very generous in contributions for the new Hamilton Art Gallery. I would say that we should all support this proposal for a publicly financed arena with matching grants undoubtedly to come forth from Wintario. I would like to say that one of the best ways to start this fund would be for a miles-for-the-arena walk some time either this year or early next spring to launch the campaign.

[12:30]

As I say, in the downtown part of the city the essential services have been upgraded and new facilities constructed. The addition of a public arena in that location would complement the provincial trade centre; the facilities of the Football Hall of Fame; the expanded facilities of the library; the convention centre; the new Ontario government building which will be constructed there; the city hall; and the board of education facility. It will also do a great deal to assist the many small businessmen, notably restaurant and hotelkeepers and shopkeepers, in that area rather than being put somewhere in the suburbs where really it will have no benefit other than to clog the highways. It has good transportation to the centre of the city and is an ideal location.

I would also like to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to all members of the House that at this time the people of Hamilton have very much in their minds and their prayers the condition of our beloved Mayor Victor Copps. I know the community is very concerned and prayerful for his steady progress on his road to recovery.

At this time, also in connection with the mayor, I would like to commend the government of Canada for last night’s announcement by Mr. Hugh Faulkner, the Secretary of State, at the citizenship court held at the Hamilton multicultural centre. He announced the appointment of Mrs. Geraldine Copps as the new citizenship judge for Hamilton-Wentworth. I know that her many years of support of her husband and her public interest in all aspects of community life will equip her as a worthy addition to this position following the footsteps of Judge Alice McEwen who, although she came to us as a stranger from Kingston, through her capabilities, understanding and foresight, soon endeared herself to the total community.

A great deal has happened across the province regarding the government’s restraint programme and it has also affected my community. A lot has been said about government’s insensitivity to the consultative process; however, I must say that from my experience I want to thank the acting Minister of Health (B. Stephenson) for her support and concern about the restraints which had to be made in the Hamilton-Wentworth hospital budgets. There were many people who were sceptical and negative when the Minister of Health said that she would listen and she wanted a response from the Hamilton-Wentworth health council.

Mr. Reid: Why didn’t she get the response before she closed the hospital?

Hon. J. R. Smith: We have an active health council. It has just been reappointed and is representative of the community --

Mr. Reid: Did they suggest closing it down?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, only one person has the floor.

Hon. J. R. Smith: As a person who is an optimist as opposed to many of the opposition pessimists, I am pleased to say that a satisfactory conclusion was reached in this matter.

The Chedoke Hospital will continue to serve its patients and the community with a very active, supportive emergency facility with ambulatory beds and active treatment beds. A greater emphasis will be placed on active treatment beds for this very fine rehabilitative hospital facility which, in the future, undoubtedly will have an even greater role to play as one of the major rehabilitative hospital facilities in Ontario.

Similarly, I would like to say that I was pleased that the minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) has announced that the Hamilton-Wentworth Children’s Aid Society will be allowed a budget increase of 1.5 per cent more than its seven per cent increase; more than the social services spending ceiling set by the province earlier this year. I was glad to see that Mr. Jack Finley, the managing director of the society, said yesterday that the budget will mean stringent belt-tightening but a child in need will not be neglected.

One of the happier events that I have had the opportunity of participating in was the opening of the first senior citizens highrise complex in my constituency last month. It is a 240-apartment unit on Upper Gage and Mohawk Rd. in Hamilton, and it has been very appropriately named the Swansea Apartment by a vote of the tenants in recognition of the 45 years of life and service to the community by the late Canon John Samuel who originally came from the Swansea valley in Wales, and I hope this will be the first of more senior citizens accommodation on the Mountain.

I’d like also to elaborate on a number of things directly related to my ministry, and particularly want to --

Mr. Reid: Would you tell us about a new jail for Fort Frances? Why don’t you make an announcement about our new jail?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I’d like to comment on the CBC programme entitled “As It Happens,” which had an item on training schools. One of the basic tenets of responsible journalism as it is practised in a democratic country is that there are two sides to every story, and perhaps this means that, regardless of their own personal biases, good journalists provide an opportunity for different points of view to be aired.

On May 3, the CBC radio programme “As It Happens” ran a 30-minute item on training schools which made absolutely no attempt at being fair. This item was inappropriately called a “documentary,” when in fact it was a one-sided editorial. The item was a curious and unusual inclusion in “As It Happens,” which has established an enviable reputation for being interesting, provocative, and, perhaps most importantly, for being fair in the airing of interviews on topics of interest. From beginning to end, this item contained only interviews with persons who criticized training schools.

One exception was the voice of a staff member of a training school, who was not replying to criticism but merely giving a straightforward description of physical facilities while walking through a school. There are many dedicated, humane and caring individuals who are devoting their lives to working with the delinquent children admitted to our training schools. With the exception of the person just mentioned, not a single one of these people was heard on the programme.

Mr. Cunningham: They were scared.

Hon. J. R. Smith: There are many who are concerned administrators involved in planning and operating the multi-faceted programme for children in training schools who would have had positive comments to make. Not a single one of these people was heard on this programme. There are many young people who have benefited from the care and attention which they received while wards of training schools. Not a single one of these people was heard.

There are many concerned and knowledgeable people working with delinquents in the community who could be considered neutral observers with insights to offer on the special problems posed by delinquents sent to training schools. Here again, not a single neutral observer’s views were heard, although two names were given to the producer; namely, Insp. Fern Alexander of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Youth Bureau, and Dr. Clive Chamberlain, chief of service, psychiatric service of the provincial court, family division.

The producer of this item, Beverley Reid, admitted to officials of my ministry that she had interviewed only persons opposed to training schools. Her research on the other side of the issue consisted of a one-hour interview with the executive director of juvenile programmes in my ministry. None of his positive comments with regard to training schools was aired. Although invited to visit a number of training schools to observe a variety of programmes in some of the newer schools, Miss Reid chose to spend only three hours at one of the older schools. From that visit she chose to air only a superficial description of the physical facilities and negative comments from wards.

The one-sided and negative presentation was at considerable variance with reports about the same school broadcast by other reporters who toured the school the same day she did, including two other CBC reporters. For the most part, the other reporters who also interviewed wards of the school made positive comments about the openness of the programme and of the staff. I think it is only fair to say that in my limited experience in this ministry, I have found that even at this school the majority of the young men have good things to say, and I think we must recognize there will always be perhaps two or three per cent who will never be satisfied or perhaps will act out when a microphone is put before them.

The visit by the reporters was sparked by critical comments made in the House by the Liberal leader, and his comments were based on an article written by a man who had been employed at the school some seven to eight years ago. The Liberal leader subsequently sent his correctional critic, the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) -- a man of high calibre whom I respect a great deal and who also is a criminal lawyer with a great deal of practical experience with juveniles -- to examine the school’s programmes first hand. I would remind the hon. members that his comments are in Hansard and that the committee studying the estimates of this ministry were very supportive of the superintendent, the staff and what is happening.

In summary, the item on training schools broadcast by “As It Happens” on May 3 consisted of a trial which heard only testimony and allegations from the prosecution and not a single word from the defence. It was an unjust trial. It was totally unfair and an irresponsible piece of journalism. The CBC has a mandate to broadcast to all Canadians. Surely implicit in the tremendous responsibility placed upon it to serve all Canadians is the responsibility to be fair and balanced in its presentation.

I was also asked a number of questions about the criticism about the Pine Ridge School in Bowmanville as a result of a grand jury report. In April, 1976, the grand jury visited Pine Ridge School in Bowmanville and made a number of recommendations. The recommendations appeared to be more related to the issue of a disturbed boy being transferred to a psychiatric facility than to the facilities or programmes offered at the institution. The report remarked, somewhat supportively, that the boy’s reaction to transfer was perhaps not inappropriate. This view was shared by our ministry. We have commented that the young man in question had been experiencing adjustment difficulties over a prolonged period of time. He has recently been placed in a Browndale treatment centre. We hope he will respond to the services provided.

Over the past several months the grand jury has visited at Bowmanville on three occasions. Their subsequent comments indicate that in general they were satisfied with the standards maintained at the institution. Recommendations made by them have been acted upon and action taken has been noted in subsequent reports. In each of the reports one short sentence is given to that portion of our service that utilizes the bulk of our skills and energy. It simply says: “We were met by the superintendent, who gave us his philosophy and plans of the school in the library, which was well stocked and clean.”

We would be remiss as a ministry if we did not attempt to balance the ledger somewhat by calling the public’s attention to what we do rather than what the grand jury perceives we don’t do. Bowmanville is a facility originally designed for use and later turned over to our ministry for use as an industrial school. For the past 50 years our ministry has been involved in construction, reconstruction and maintenance of this facility to provide the structural changes required to meet the demands of a diversifying programme.

Academically, the school offers a diversified occupational programme for boys 15 years of age and over and an elementary curriculum set out by the Ministry of Education. Vocational training includes such courses as carpentry, building construction, sheet metal, welding, painting, decorating, auto servicing, trowel trades, food service and horticulture. Each young man receives individual counselling by a guidance specialist to assist him in making wise choices of vocational roles.

I would like to say at this time that the ministry presently has a task force, representative of administration, teachers and others competent in the field of education, reviewing our whole educational programme, both in the juvenile and adult divisions. Similarly, we have formed a committee to look at the whole role of chaplaincy and chaplain volunteers throughout the ministry as well.

This year saw the development and implementation of an intensive one-month outdoor recreation programme where a small group of boys spent an entire month studying nature lore, meteorology and biology. As part of this exercise, one group participated in two-day and five-day overnight outdoor excursions. In September, 1975, as part of a total service to the child, teachers joined the treatment and child-care staff as part of the team assigned to programming for the individual.

Again, cognizant of the child as a contributing part of any system, the treatment staff of the school increased its services to families of boys in residence. In many cases, families would come to the school for the service, but where this is impractical the staff would journey to the home to carry out the counselling. For some time, the focus of the ministry has been on community-based service. Both the work study programme and the prime worker programme have been evolved with this in mind.

[12:45]

The work study programme is an on-the-ground and in-community exposure to working situations. In the last year, 40 boys have been involved in this programme in a variety of occupations. The intent here is to teach students how to apply for a job, how to perform well in the job and how to manage their pay cheques, all in preparedness for self-sufficiency.

The prime worker programme evolved from an awareness that significant relationships between the child care staff and the children are formed during the institution phase of a child’s experience and that this relationship could play an important part in community placement A supervisor is assigned a caseload of three to five boys for whom he is particularly responsible in regard to family, after-care contact and graduation plans under overall supervision of the house treatment representative.

This prime worker is aware of a child’s needs for continued support and guidance during this difficult transition from institution to community and will participate with him, sometimes on a daily basis, accomplishing such tasks as seeking employment, registration at school, facilitating discussion and setting goals with the family. This relationship is gradually replaced by the probation after-care officer who is responsible for the long-term community supervision of the child.

The recreation programme at Pine Ridge offers a cross-section of activities, ranging from the standard gym-oriented sports to outdoor activities, such as canoeing and downhill and cross-country skiing, hockey, etc. A feature of the recreation programme at Pine Ridge is an attempt to involve the boys in as many community activities as possible. This is accomplished both by going to the community and by making the facilities of the school, such as the gym and the swimming pool available to local residents. In fact, the superintendents remarked to me that one of their problems at Pine Ridge is the parking lot facilities are not large enough to accommodate the hundreds of people who come to use their facilities for recreation purposes.

Pine Ridge has an ever-expanding volunteer programme. In this past year, roughly 50 volunteers were involved with students in arts and crafts, dramatics, photography, aquatics, music, remedial and many other leisure activities. In addition, the boys at Pine Ridge themselves act as volunteers with retarded and the aged in the local community. In the coming year, Pine Ridge looks to develop both a positive-peer culture programme and a community re-entry programme. The latter programme will concentrate on the older, participating youth who needs assistance in finding employment and self-contained accommodation.

The positive-peer culture programme which has been utilized in Sprucedale, has demonstrated, at least in its early stages, a potential for assisting its clientele. I was really pleased that the ministry seminar held at OISE this winter by the author of the positive-peer culture programme was so widely attended by hundreds. Particularly noticeable were the number of young people, university students, who recognize in this programme some very positive aspects. I know from the enthusiasm of those who are working at Sprucedale that I’ve met and from some of the graduates of that positive-peer programme at Sprucedale that it’s a very exciting thing and maybe it will have some of the answers we’ve been long looking for.

The above descriptions are by no means an exhaustive list of programmes available to boys at Pine Ridge. The programming at this institution is always adapting, as the superintendent and staff attempt to design new initiatives that will meet the needs of their population. Growth of this nature characterizes Pine Ridge, in spite of the physical limitations of the plant which that institution contains.

I felt it really necessary to commend the programme at that school because it’s so easy for certain people to be negative and say a lot of things to which the members of staff cannot respond. I’d say I recognize on many occasions it’s no easy job, task or walk in life to work in one of these institutions. Sometimes you only hear one side of the story. I think of one of the young ladies from the school at Hagersville who had a severe physical impairment through an altercation with one of the residents of that school, is still on sick leave. And so to all the workers of the training schools throughout the province, I would like to thank them for their ongoing involvement with the students and the good work they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend the staff of the Brampton Jail during the recent fire in that venerable institution. The most serious threat to human life in the fire at the Brampton Jail on Feb. 9 was posed by the smoke. As Superintendent John Stone recalls, “It was as thick as if there was a blanket over your head at midnight.” We know it was an act of arson by one of the inmates. The whole staff quickly responded to the situation, and through good judgement and fast action, the lives of inmates and staff were saved. I think we can really commend the entire staff, who work so well in this very difficult and overcrowded institution.

During the estimates of my ministry, Mr. Speaker, some positive remarks were made by the hon. member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), regarding the problems of immigrant children in conflict with the law. I want to say publicly, as I assured him privately, that it is very fortunate and speaks well for the community -- particularly the Italian and Portuguese communities -- that percentage-wise very few youngsters from these immigrant backgrounds find themselves in conflict with the law.

One of the ever-increasing needs of my ministry is the volunteer worker. I would like to commend this morning one of these volunteers, Mr. Jose Carlos Sousa, of Metropolitan Toronto, who has been working with the children of immigrant non-English-speaking parents, who have growing up problems that are peculiar to them. Mr. Sousa is a volunteer probation worker with Metropolitan Toronto Portuguese population, and he is hoping to lessen the difficulties of a few immigrant families. He works for the Portuguese Consulate General as a community worker. He helps immigrants with problems, such as tracking down employers who don’t pay employees for their work, compensation claims, and so on.

He feels that the ultimate goal of every immigrant should be full participation within Canadian society. And this is being achieved through volunteers such as him.

I would like to say to the hon. members that where there are large concentrations of new Canadians, we are particularly eager to have more community volunteers to assist our programmes, both with young people and adults.

Mr. Speaker, the other night I had the opportunity of addressing the Hamilton and District Literacy Council’s annual meeting, and I am very proudly wearing this morning their logo pin. You will notice it is a very well-designed emblem of two people standing side by side. It shows that tutor and student are equal.

Mr. Nixon: Do you see that, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. J. R. Smith: The literacy council in Hamilton has been a pioneer in the creation of this first such movement in this province, which I see as having an application throughout Ontario. It is evident, even in our adult institutions, there are many people who are illiterate. These volunteers are doing an admirable job in assisting so many inmates to discover the joys of reading and writing, as well as assisting countless people in the regular community.

One of the finest institutions in our ministry is, of course, the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton. I would like to share with you the report of a research study on Vanier Centre. Correctional officers at the centre --

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t we just adjourn and get on with this at another time?

Hon. J. R. Smith: There is lots of time, Mr. Speaker.

The correctional officers at Vanier Centre for Women are key figures in the institution’s programme, a report by Leah Lambert and Patrick Madden has recently shown. This study spanned a four-year period, 1970 to 1973, and included a followup in the community. Correctional staff, more than any other level of staff, were shown to have the greatest potential for assessing and influencing behaviour.

Staff and residents of the Vanier centre and the female wings of the Whitby and Toronto jails participated in the study. A total of 338 women admitted to the Vanier centre for 1970 to 1971 were included in the sample. Of these, 178 were interviewed one year after their return to the community. Our files were checked for all 338 at the end of the two-year period. In the community followup, probation and parole staff across the province were largely responsible for locating the subjects prior to the research interview.

Of those 338 women, 22 per cent, 74, were reconvicted during their first year in the community. An additional two per cent, six women, were reconvicted for parole violations; 13 per cent, which is 44, were reconvicted during the second year, bringing the total recidivism to 37 per cent. Of the 118 recidivists, 110, or 86 per cent, were incarcerated at some time during the two-year followup period.

The length of time spent at the centre was found to be important in terms of delaying recidivism until the second year and very short terms were found to be the least meaningful. Those with less than four months showed the fastest return rate. Stays lasting four to eight months appeared the most positive.

The employment pattern was the most significant factor in terms of intervening in the criminality pattern. Women with prior criminality had an overall recidivism of 46 per cent. Of this group, those with stable employment patterns showed a 16 per cent recidivism.

Directly connected to that, Mr. Speaker, in the opposite direction, is the correctional centre for men at Monteith, north of Timmins, and also in southern Ontario there is a similar programme -- I would like to commend the staff there as well as the staff of Monteith for their vocational preparation programme. It was in co-operation with Northern College and the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration and has shown some tremendous results.

I would just like to share some of the statements made by people involved in this programme:

“The lesson we can learn from the Monteith success is that we can learn to cooperate in social services. There has been a great deal of co-operation here among senior people. An individual isn’t dead when a prison sentence is imposed. There are opportunities.”

Mr. J. W. Baileny, the assistant dean, retraining and apprenticeship division, at Northern College, made that observation. Again, I would like to say that the members of this House are ever welcome to visit any of the correctional centres or training schools at any time.

And since it is 1 o’clock, Mr. Speaker, I will move the adjournment.

Hon. J. R. Smith moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, and wishing a good holiday weekend for all members of the Legislature, may I indicate the programme for next week?

On Tuesday, when we return, in the afternoon there will be a legislative session from 3 to 6. We will go into committee of the whole House on Bill 25. We will then come out of committee and do second readings in this order: 12, 13, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, as time will permit.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.