The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

COMMONWEALTH DAY VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: If I could have the attention of the honourable members for a moment, I would like to draw their attention to the fact that today, the second Monday in March, is Commonwealth Day. It is being celebrated by countries, provinces and states throughout the Commonwealth of Nations.

Earlier today I had the honour of hosting a luncheon for members of the Commonwealth consular corps who are resident here in Toronto. Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, and representatives of all parties in the Legislature attended the luncheon. I am sure honourable members would like to welcome those distinguished persons who are members of the consular corps stationed in Toronto. They are in the Speaker’s gallery this afternoon.

Would you welcome them on this occasion?

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

USE OF HERBICIDES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Because of the concern regarding the use of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-TP, in Ontario, I would like to update the members on the action my ministry has taken in this situation.

First, let me assure the House that use of such substances is strictly controlled under the terms of the Pesticides Act. Before a specific chemical is approved, its safety is carefully assessed. The ministry then continually monitors and reviews current scientific data that may affect its use.

Our experts are well aware of the recent report on the two chemicals released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. They will be receiving a copy of that report shortly. In light of this new information, I have arranged to pass an immediate regulation to the Pesticides Act which will temporarily prohibit the use of these herbicides. This will give ministry staff and the Pesticides Advisory Committee time to completely review the data.

If careful examination of the report finds that specific uses may be acceptable, the regulation can always be changed. But if serious concerns are justified, I will take immediate action to have both chemicals permanently declared illegal for use in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Good move.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WESTINGHOUSE CANADA

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism: When, if ever, did the minister first become aware of a study undertaken by Westinghouse Canada which may well result in putting 700 production employees out of work in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t have that information with me today but I believe we were informed of that just recently. I would be pleased to get the details for the Leader of the Opposition if he wishes. I will have it tomorrow.

I wonder if at that time the Leader of the Opposition might want to pursue for this House in question period some of the thoughts he was pursuing on Saturday night. I would be interested to do that as well.

Mr. Renwick: Shame.

Mr. Hall: It wasn’t Saturday night.

Mr. S. Smith: When the minister is indicating a lack of familiarity with this matter and speaking of having received only very recent notification, I presume he is speaking of Friday or Saturday, which is when everyone else heard about it.

May I ask him why it is that his ministry did not follow up on the announcement in November 1978 by the president of Westinghouse Canada, an American gentleman? He said then that the role of Westinghouse Canada, as a branch plant, is becoming less viable. He also said the strategy for the future of Westinghouse in Canada was being developed by Westinghouse Corporation in Pittsburgh. This was in the public press.

Dues the ministry not follow matters of this kind? Why was the minister not talking to Westinghouse about their plans -- their so-called “rationalization” plans? Why was he not, in fact, alerting the people of Ontario, and the workers of that plant, to the kinds of decisions being taken in Pittsburgh affecting their future and ours?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: While the member has been expanding a bit, I located some information which indicates that the first contact with our ministry occurred in October of last year. There was further contact on February 22, at which time, by the way, the company reported 125 employees being recalled, not laid off.

Those conversations, I would presume, are continuing. I might say to the member that I suppose in my book I have exactly 62 pages of information regarding companies with whom we are carrying on discussions at any given time. Obviously, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition there are 124 members of this House who could rise and ask me a question with regard to our ongoing discussions with any particular firm. I would obviously need to go back in our files and find out exactly what the status of those conversations is.

If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise this type of question, I think it is important that we be in a position to notify the House with regard to just what conversations have gone on. I would be happy to do that.

Perhaps he might follow the procedure that some of his colleagues have followed; that is to call us a few days in advance and say he would like to raise this particular question in the House. At that time, I might be able to give him all the details of those conversations. Having said that --

Mr. McClellan: What about getting notice from Westinghouse?

Mr. Hall: Wouldn’t that be nice. Wouldn’t that be nice.

Mr. Renwick: He is unprepared.

Mr. McClellan: You are right on top of things, aren’t you?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Having said that, may I say that those types of conversations, which are exactly the type we have been talking about over the last few weeks, are the types of conversations we are going to continue to have with the American firms with branch plants in this country. We are determined to speak with those firms and try to identify situations where, instead of closing plants that have become unproductive, or for whatever other reasons they might have, they might put themselves in a better position to carry on business here in a rationalized way.

Mr. Mackenzie: You are totally unprepared.

Mr. McClellan: Do you sing and dance?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might also take this opportunity to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I presume his community in Hamilton has benefited somewhat by the presence of that American multinational up until this time. I will say further: to suggest that for this government to go out and offer some incentive grants to locate those types of firms under certain conditions is a policy which should not be followed, is hardly doing anything to promote the corporate decision that Westinghouse or anyone else is going to make to locate in this province.

Mr. Warner: You are totally lost.

Mr. Martel: You haven’t said a thing about the company yet.

Mr. S. Smith: Are we going to have to give them money to stay now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For example, when the Leader of the Opposition stands up and suggests that the reasons for our attempts to create employment in the riding of Windsor-Walkerville were in essence so that Tory cabinet ministers could attend a ribbon cutting --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister is going far afield in regard to the specific supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: The answer is he doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the Leader of the Opposition is raising a question about our relationship as a government with multinationals carrying on business in Canada.

Mr. Martel: A pox on both your houses. You would give the store away.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think it’s totally relevant. I hope he pursues it.

Mr. Speaker: Does anyone have a supplementary? The member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Martel: Does anyone have an answer?

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister not telling this House that he’s totally unprepared to deal with the issue of Westinghouse and the potential layoff of 700 employees, which is another decision being made by a company that’s not owned in this Canada, over which we have no control or say and which is going to directly affect the workers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That of course totally ignores, which is convenient for the member, the exchange the Leader of the Opposition and I have just had. If he wants to raise the question again before question period ends or if the Speaker will permit me to get the necessary information so that we may carry on an intelligent rather than a rhetorical discussion about Westinghouse, then I will be happy to do it. I might say that it’s more easy for the member to jump on the multinationals which may have made some decisions, without having the facts before the House. I’ll be pleased to obtain those facts. I’ll have them before 3 o’clock. I’ll tell the member what part my ministry and the Ministry of Labour have played in this situation.

Mr. Warner: The minister probably told Westinghouse, “We treat you royally.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Then he can see if it’s as easy to jump all over the multinationals and the attempts by this government to maintain those jobs as it is at 2:10, without giving us any notice of the question he was going to raise.

Mr. S. Smith: If I may have a final supplementary from this particular desk, does the minister not realize that what he is saying is that despite a public announcement in November that this type of decision was being contemplated, his ministry has still left him rather in the dark, considering the plans of this multinational which now will affect very likely 700 jobs in Hamilton? Doesn’t he think it’s time we had a code of proper corporate behaviour showing community and social responsibility for the foreign-owned corporations and, for that matter, domestically owned corporations in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be really quite pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition participate perhaps later today -- one can never tell -- by way of explaining what kind of corporate code he might talk about imposing in terms of moral suasion or whatever he intends to impose upon the American multinationals.

Mr. Mackenzie: Something better than Colombus McKinnon.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister adopt it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let the Leader of the Opposition issue it tomorrow morning and then ask some questions tomorrow afternoon, or indeed if he’s ready to go tomorrow morning, let him get into it this afternoon and we’ll be pleased to respond to it.

Mr. Nixon: Do you want notice?

Mr. Martel: Are we going to have a crash program?

Mr. Nixon: Back to city council.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I must point out that over the last many weeks we have been talking about things such as global product mandating, which is exactly the type of situation which will allow multinationals to carry on profitable enterprises in this province.

I must point out that we have been talking extensively over the past few weeks about the use of the employment development fund in order not only to give incentive grants where appropriate, but to obtain from the American firms appropriate undertakings with regard to such things as sourcing in Canada, research and development and technology. I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I know he’s aware that we’ve been saying that, because he repeated almost word for word yesterday or the day before all --

Mr. Sargent: Time. Sit down.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- policy statements that this government has been talking about over the past two months, saying that if they were elected, that’s what they would do. He’s been reading those speeches very carefully, taking them over and trying to say the government is not doing them. I’ll wait for tomorrow morning and hear his code of conduct for American firms.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Before this pathetic piece of self-justification by the minister comes to an end, is he aware, as I told him on Friday --

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: -- that between 1974 and 1978 there have been 2,800 jobs lost in the electrical industry just in the city of Hamilton? What action will this government take now in order to protect the electrical industry and protect the 700 jobs now being cut in Westinghouse Canada?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I indicated, I will be happy to discuss the situation with regard to Westinghouse in Hamilton before 3 o’clock and secondly, as I indicated on Friday, we have had a task force investigating the electronics industry and we discussed it in estimates. If the member would ask the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) --

Mr. McClellan: Where have you been all that time?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- we got into it in detail and we will have more to say on the electronics industry after that task force report becomes public.

[Later (3:03):]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition earlier that I would try to get some details about the Westinghouse situation before 3 o’clock. The Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to forewarn me that he did have to leave around 3 o’clock but, nonetheless, I know he will have wanted me to give whatever information I do have at this time.

I am informed by my staff that late on Friday we were in receipt of what was and is only a press release indicating that Westinghouse was indeed moving its switch gear and control division to, we are informed, other Canadian plants. We are informed that is due to the age of the particular plant and that this is part of a program of rationalization of their operation.

I must say I am rather disappointed, if the information I have is correct, in that as an ordinary matter of course our ministry is notified, not only formally at the time of layoffs, which we haven’t been yet, but in most eases well in advance of layoffs so that we might work with the particular firm involved to see what other strategies might be involved in terms of that particular plant and also in order that the Minister of Labour might work with the employee group in question.

In any case, we are not in receipt of that formal notice at the present time. Notwithstanding that, arrangements had been made first thing this morning for our development officer in the area to meet with the executive of the Canadian Westinghouse early this week, which should be today or tomorrow. I will have a more formal statement to make tomorrow with regard to the outcome of that meeting and some further details surrounding the number of employees and what steps might be taken.

Mr. Speaker: We will add a further two minutes to the question period.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary to the minister’s statement, Mr. Speaker: In view of the clear unwillingness of Westinghouse to be co-operative, as shown by the fact that they did not notify the ministry in advance, as the minister had said is customary: will the minister himself not be prepared now to intervene: to talk with the president of Westinghouse Canada; to talk, if necessary, with the heads of the international corporation in order to find out what’s going on; to get clear answers about how many jobs will remain in Ontario; and to tell the corporation that this is not the way a multinational should deal with Canadian workers’ jobs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should indicate to the House that I have asked my deputy minister to contact the head of Canadian Westinghouse. He has already done that. I think he has spoken with him within the past 40 minutes -- since the question was first raised. By way of explaining the situation from our standpoint: I should add that the deputy minister and myself were tied up in a meeting in this building from 9 o’clock right until question period. As soon as that meeting was finished, the deputy went back and contacted the head of that company.

Now, of course I will be doing, in this case, what I have done in other cases, including the Budd case and others: that is, contacting the appropriate executive officers, both here and in the United States, to see what follow up is required at a senior level.

[Reverting (2:17):]

THAMES RIVER FLOODING

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), I will direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. One has to ask the question anyhow. In view of the dreadful flooding on the Thames River in Dover township near Chatham, can the minister explain why preventive measures were not taken, such as dredging the mouth of the river properly, or breaking up the ice a short distance upstream with an ice-breaking vessel, and can he explain why it is that the Prairie Siding bridge gauge was not working, the gauge which is supposed to indicate a warning when the level comes up? Why was that not working even though the one up in Chatham was working? Does the minister know the answer to this and can he tell us how it is that the conservation authority seems so ill-prepared to deal with items of this kind which keep recurring in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition would like to have as much information as possible. I am advised that the Minister of Natural Resources will be here shortly.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: I think, rather than have the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development take it as notice, with the permission of the House, could we defer that question until the arrival of the appropriate minister? Is that agreed?

Mr. Makarchuk: No.

Mr. Speaker: The only thing is, if he doesn’t make the statement prior to the end of the question period, there won’t be an opportunity today. As we don’t have unanimous consent perhaps the member could pursue it.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, when the minister eventually makes a statement, will the provincial secretary see to it that his colleague makes a statement regarding what can be done for the people who have been affected by this flood and what measures will be taken by the province of Ontario to relieve some of the very severe damage, much of which is not covered by insurance? Will the minister undertake to have a statement on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I will be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker.

[Later (2:40):]

Mr. Watson: A question for the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the serious situation in Dover township with the flooding this weekend: There have been many accusations made regarding the reason the Thames River overflowed. It did so much damage, the people in my riding would like some kind of official explanation. Would the minister responsible for flooding in this province, if I can put it that way --

Interjections.

Mr. Watson: -- or would the minister, being responsible for flood prevention, which might be a better way of putting it --

Interjections.

Mr. Watson: -- seek some type of report or inquiry so all the facts can come out as to why we did experience the disaster we did and what could be done in the future to prevent similar things from happening?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, perhaps with your permission, I might read a short statement I had hoped to read at 2 o’clock but I was delayed because of a luncheon meeting.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have unanimous consent to revert to statements?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: This will be deducted from the question period.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This has to do with Dover township, Mr. Speaker. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on March 9, earth dikes on the north side of the Thames River in Dover township were breached in a number of places. Twelve breaches have been reported. All except one of those breaks occurred in sections of the diking system that had not been reconstructed under the federal/provincial diking program.

Mr. Eaton: The feds pulled out.

Hon. Mr. Auld: We’ll come to that. Extension of this program is being discussed now with the federal government.

The breaching was caused by an ice jam. This matter is being investigated and a further report will be given as soon as all the facts have been put together.

According to Ministry of Natural Resources staff, the Fanshawe, Wildwood and Pittock Dams, which control flooding on the Thames, were operated according to procedures for the conditions that existed beginning March 4.

The Lower Thames Conservation Authority has been monitoring flooding in the Thames and in the Chatham area since March 4 and also became involved in the Dover township areas on March 9 when it was learned the Ontario Provincial Police were evacuating some residents in the area. Up until this time, the authority was not contacted for assistance by the municipalities.

Since becoming involved, authority staff and Ministry of Natural Resources staff have been working closely with the -- excuse me -- OPP to help evacuate residents and have been patrolling the flood area issuing further warnings.

Mr. Peterson: There was no difference before and after you cleared your throat.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Fortunately, no lives have been lost but approximately 8,500 acres have been flooded. Township officials are still trying to get an accurate count of the number of homes affected. I add to this statement, Mr. Speaker, that I understand that the water has receded since the ice jam, which had moved to the mouth of the Thames, has been removed by dynamite.

May I also add, Mr. Speaker, that as far as disaster relief is concerned, I believe an application is being made by at least one municipality, if not more, to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) whose ministry deals with our disaster relief legislation. I assume he will be in a position to say something about that when some better idea of the amount of damage has been established.

To answer particularly the question of the member for Chatham-Kent, I would simply say it would appear that the various participants were acting according to their best judgement which may well have been the best judgement at the time. I would suggest it’s necessary that the member municipalities of the authority, who have members on the authority, would have a meeting of the authority to get a report from the staff themselves rather than simply waiting for the next regular meeting. Certainly, if it appears that there has not been the best judgement exercised or there is some disagreement as to whose responsibilities were involved, that is the municipality or the authority, then we would conduct a further investigation.

[2:45]

I’ll be in a better position to comment further on that, Mr. Speaker, when I’ve had an opportunity to get further hard information from the area. I think it’s fair to say that the activities in the last day or two have been involved more in making sure that there were no personal injuries, or that those kinds of things were at a minimum, and also to reduce property damage, than to sit down and take a good look at what transpired and how the matter was resolved.

I know the concern of the member for Chatham-Kent and other members in the area and I would hope that perhaps by Thursday we would have a definitive answer in terms of approximate total damage and further information about the various actions that were taken.

May I only add at this point that I am informed by our own staff that dynamiting is not always the best answer because if it is effective and does not damage the downstream area, all it may do is move the problem farther downstream where the conditions might turn out to be worse. I think it’s also fair to say that the fact that the repairs and sort of renovation of the dike which I believe is part of a municipal drainage system in the original instance are not complete. It’s significant that 11 of the 12 breaches in the dike -- and those breaches were what caused the flooding -- took place in the area where the renovations had not been completed.

Mr. Speaker: In fairness, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk had attempted to raise this on Friday and so had the member for Brantford so if they wish to pose supplementaries in that order, they may.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Leader of the Opposition had also asked your permission to follow up with a question when the honourable minister had made a statement. I would certainly yield to my colleague.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton West, then, followed by the member for Brantford.

Mr. S. Smith: Basically, when the minister was a little late, I asked his colleague, who may pass on the question to him, but fundamentally it is simply this: Why is it that the conservation authorities never seem to be able to respond to these matters before they actually occur? For instance, why were they not dredging the silt away from the mouth of the river sufficiently? Why was there no ice-breaking tug used on this occasion as has happened in the past? Can you say why it was that the gauge that’s supposed to indicate when a dangerous level is being reached was not operating at the Prairie Siding area even though the gauge was working upstream in Chatham?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I can’t yet answer the question about the flood gauge. I can tell the honourable member that the Canadian Coastguard vessel and ice-breaker -- I cannot remember now the name of the vessel -- was standing by at Amherstburg, but apparently, in the view of the various parties concerned, it was not felt to be required at the time the flood was taking place.

The original ice I am was at a curve well above Lake St. Clair, some distance above, and well above Chatham, and the pressures that were exerted there on that part of the dike, which as I said had not yet been repaired, caused the original flooding and the main damage according to the reports that I have today. There is apparently some damage in Chatham but apparently not as great as that on the farmland and the fields in Dover township.

[Later (3:05):]

Hon. Mr. Auld: This may be a matter of personal privilege. A little further information came to hand about the Dover situation. It may well be -- and I wouldn’t want to imply that it was the federal government’s fault -- but that was a shared program, in that I think the owners or groups in that area would pay 10 per cent. They may have declined to go along with the completion of it. I’m I not sure, but I just wanted to indicate that and find out more about it in the next day or two.

[Reverting (2:18):]

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like the consent of the House to postpone a question to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) until, as I understand, he arrives in the House shortly. Perhaps I could stand a question down.

Mr. Kerrio: Forget it.

Mr. S. Smith: Same co-operation you gave us.

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister of Health is coming in now.

Mr. MacDonald: The late Dennis Timbrell.

Mr. Cassidy: Coming from behind the arras, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the recently arrived Minister of Health.

Mr. Breaugh: Soon to be departed.

Mr. Cassidy: On Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health denied --

Hon. Mr. Davis: At least he has arrived, Michael. You haven’t even arrived yet.

Mr. Cassidy: I am getting there; just you wait. On Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health denied that 50 to 70 per cent of the doctors in the city of Peterborough have opted out of OHIP and I would like the minister to table in this House at once the full information regarding the numbers and the percentages of full-time practising physicians who have opted out of OHIP in the city of Peterborough and in other centres across the province, because the OHIP administration in Oshawa has today confirmed for us that at least 50 per cent, if not 70 per cent, of the doctors in the city of Peterborough are now out of OHIP and that this is also the case in the city of Orillia.

Mr. Mackenzie: Talk about the Hamilton General too, and see who is telling the truth.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I apologize for being a little delayed.

Mr. Warner: It would have been better if the minister hadn’t shown up at all.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can give the members the figures by administrative regions as at the end of February. I’ve got only one copy, so I’ll get some copies made during the question period and send them I to the member. I can tell him though, that for the Oshawa office, which includes the county of Simcoe, the region of York, the district of Muskoka, Haliburton, county of Victoria, county of Peterborough, region of Durham and the county of Northumberland --

Mr. McClellan: Why doesn’t the minister answer the question?

Mr. Swart: Tell us about the city of Peterborough.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I haven’t got those figures with me but I’ll be glad to get them.

Mr. Martel: The minister said we were lying about Peterborough.

Mr. Mackenzie: Oh, he hasn’t got them yet. He is slipping as much as the other minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If members won’t give the minister the courtesy of answering the question, something as detailed as that --

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is not answering the question.

Mr. Speaker: -- I’m going to insist that questions of that nature be put as an inquiry to the ministry requiring detailed information. If you want to hear what the honourable minister has to say and ask a supplementary, that’s fine, but if you are going to continue to interrupt I have no alternative but to insist that questions of that nature be made inquiries of the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I say, I’ll get this information for the member. We do not keep the figures on a city-by-city or town-by-town basis.

Mr. Martel: Then why didn’t the minister just say he was wrong on Thursday?

Mr. Turner: You were.

Mr. G. Taylor: Fifty isn’t 70.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have it on the basis of counties. I can get it for him on the basis of counties. Particularly, in that regard, the figures for Peterborough county are below 50 per cent; they’re not 50 to 70 per cent. But I’ll get the material for the member.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister is satisfied that it is 50 per cent, is he?

Mr. Martel: He said we were distorting the figures.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Since the minister said on Thursday that I was wrong in saying that in the city of Peterborough it was more than 50 per cent, he obviously must have the figures. Will he table those figures? Will he table the figures for opted-out physicians in every county of Ontario? Will he do it now, so that the people of the province can judge whether or not there is a threat to the universality of medicare across the province because of doctors opting out with the permission of the government?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not a threat to universality. It is not; it is not a threat.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why doesn’t the Minister of Colleges and Universities go and find a throat specialist in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member, he is mistaken as regards the Peterborough area. On the question of the universality of the system, as I said repeatedly, the act of opting out is not, in and of itself, a threat to the universality of health care, otherwise we would have a problem before now --

Mr. Warner: It is and the minister knows it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Shhh.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- because we’ve had opting out as a fundamental element of the plan for more than eight years, I guess, now, and there is no indication whatsoever --

Mr. Warner: Boy oh boy, the expert of distortion.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that at any point in that time, nor currently, has the universality of the system been threatened or is it being threatened. I haven’t got the county-by-county figures with me. If the honourable member would like those I’ll be glad to table those in this House. In the meantime, I’ll give him the numbers that I do have by administrative region of OHIP, that show, for instance, that out of the Kingston office almost 95 per cent of the doctors are opted in. There are areas that are higher. The area that I started to describe is the counties and regions --

Mr. Warner: Tell us about Peterborough.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that are served out of the Oshawa office, where 77.8 per cent of the doctors are opted in. It does vary across the province. I’ll be glad to get that to the member.

Mr. Warner: What is the minister going to do about it?

Mr. Swart: What about Peterborough county?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the minister now admits that in a seven-county area that is served by the Oshawa OHIP regional office 23 per cent of the doctors have opted out of OHIP, since the amount of opting out has gone up by 70 per cent, according to the ministry’s figures, between April of last year and January of this year -- that is, from under 11 per cent to just under 18 per cent -- and still appears to be climbing, and since the minister said last April 18 that he is monitoring the situation, and since he is clearly keeping figures for his own benefit in order to reply to questions in the House, will the minister table all of those figures in this Legislature today so that the people of the province can judge for each part of the province and, hopefully, for each city just what is the situation and how great the threat is, because we believe it’s very ominous?

Mr. Speaker: That is the same as the previous question.

Mr. Cassidy: No, Mr. Speaker. I asked for the specific commitment that the figures will be tabled. I have not had that from the minister yet.

Mr. Speaker: That commitment was made. The second question from the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the minister’s answer was no and I regret that.

Mr. Speaker: No.

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker. The minister is aware that Mr. Lyle Leeson, an employee of the Rideau Regional Centre for the Mentally Retarded, was acquitted February 22 on a charge of having sexual intercourse with a feebleminded resident. Will the minister explain why Mr. Leeson has not been reinstated in his job now that he has been acquitted by the Perth county court?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the matter is currently under review and I expect to have final advice from senior legal advisers within the very near future. I would like to get this matter resolved as quickly as possible, but I would also point out to the honourable member that the fact in itself of an acquittal on a criminal charge does not necessarily rule out any possibility of administrative action in some instances. That is the matter that I hope to have resolved very shortly.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Was the party not found innocent? Did the witnesses against him not admit they had cooked up the story and lied? Has he not been suspended without pay since September 18? Since when in this country do we find somebody guilty in advance? Can we be assured not only that he will be reinstated in his job but that he will receive back pay for the period that he has been suspended?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the finding of a court in this country is that of guilty or not guilty as opposed to the finding of innocent, as is the case in some jurisdictions, and I am well aware of that. The matter of the suspension and reinstatement is a matter I will determine as expeditiously as possible, as soon as the full information has been reviewed and I have had final advice upon it.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the ministry saying that Mr. Leeson is being subjected to a form of double jeopardy because of administrative action by his ministry? If that is the case, can he defend why double jeopardy is being employed when the employee has gone through the whole mechanism of a trial by a court? Will he guarantee that when Mr. Leeson is reinstated he will get his full back pay for the period in which he has been out of a job because of action by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I assure the honourable members opposite that Mr. Leeson will be dealt with in the fairest manner possible when I have all the information finally before me.

I am not suggesting there will be a difference in this case -- please don’t misinterpret what I am saying -- but there is a difference in standards of proof and admissibility of evidence and so on between criminal proceedings and administrative proceedings before various tribunals other than courts that exist in this province.

I am sure the honourable members opposite would wish that I be very certain, in the interests of all parties concerned including residents, before a final decision is made in this case. I’m sure members would wish me to have at my disposal all of the information that was presented, in the courts and otherwise, and the very best advice I can obtain. That is all I am waiting to do. I do not wish that you misinterpret what I am saying. I don’t believe in any event that this is a situation where what might happen one way or the other could be construed as double jeopardy.

RESOURCE EQUALIZATION GRANTS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. As the accumulated loss of equalization grants by the city of Windsor has been estimated at approximately $30 million over the years, as it is also substantial in relation to other municipalities, and as the previous Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has admitted this inequity, can the Premier inform the municipalities at this time what the extent of that grant will be and when the cities can expect it?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if memory serves me correctly, one of the members opposite asked a comparable question related to some other municipality, I think on Thursday or Friday.

An hon. member: No, it was Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, was it Windsor? Somebody over there asked the same question on Thursday or Friday. I think the answer was given then but I certainly am quite prepared to repeat it.

An hon. member: There was no answer given.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I think there was an answer given. As I recall, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) referred it to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells); the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was not here, but there was an answer given to the question. I am prepared to expand on that answer.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is not here. He will be prepared to answer the question when he is here. But, in the interim, I would say to the honourable members that we are contemplating some interim steps to deal with this particular situation. Although I would point out to the members from Windsor that, in terms of equalization, while it does not appear in any grant formula, we have made available certain funds for capital works in the surrounding municipality to accommodate that very significant industrial enterprise called Ford Canada Limited, which apparently the honourable member’s leader was not happy with over the weekend, even after he advised this House we should go it alone without the feds or at least 50 per cent, the logic of which I find a little difficult to follow.

I might also ask the member for Windsor-Walkerville, is he a part of the liberal or conservative part of the Liberal caucus of Ontario?

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As the Premier would have provided equal assistance to any other municipality in Ontario, he did not treat Windsor any differently from the way he would treat other municipalities. But in the case of the grant structure -- and the Premier believes in fairness -- he knows he has mistreated the city of Windsor. The city of Windsor would like to strike a tax rate and is waiting and has been waiting for a substantial period of time, for an answer from his government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really was not being facetious. As a matter of fact, we are expediting certain capital works to assist the city of Windsor, and I guess that has some impact on the great county of Essex with respect to the Ford plant. I notice from the press that even the members locally disagree with their leader and think it is a great thing for the economy of that part of Ontario. But that does not surprise me; I have never expected logic from across the House.

Mr. Kerrio: We just hit the ball back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on; my friend just wishes he had it. He knows how he was longing to get that in Niagara Falls. He remembers our conversation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not talking about Niagara Falls.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who is he kidding? Was he at the meeting on the weekend?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Van Horne: We’re tired of your nonsense. Get on with it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the member for London North, if he can identify nonsense, he should have no trouble within his caucus -- no trouble at all.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat what I said in answer to the initial question: We are planning some interim solution to it and, as soon as it is available, we will inform the members of the House as well as the municipality of Windsor, a great municipality.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, we already know in this House that the government has planned some interim measure. What we want to know is when the dollar figures are going to be announced. There was an $8-million commitment. I would like to ask the Premier, has that $8 million been changed, and has the number of municipalities that are to receive grants been increased? if so, that means Windsor will get considerably less than what the government originally promised.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with very great respect, I do not recall the government committing itself to any particular number of municipalities. My recollection -- and I am subject to correction --

Mr. Kerrio: Frequently.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, frequently. I notice by the press that the honourable member is part of the conservative wing of the Liberal caucus. How can he explain that to me? How does he explain that?

An hon. member: The whole bunch of them are.

An hon. member: He is what you call a progressive conservative.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member is blushing.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have got high blood pressure. I am not blushing; it is the heat of the lights.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Meanwhile, back in Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A great town to be back in.

As I recall, Windsor has made submissions over a number of years; the city of Sarnia also has made submissions, as well as two or three other municipalities that have become rather public. I think it is fair to state that this government never said that whatever interim measure we develop would be confined only to those municipalities that made submissions.

In any policy, the honourable member would understand that, even if a very small municipality is involved in the same difficulty as Windsor or Sarnia -- you name it -- it should receive the same degree of equity. So I think the honourable member can assume that whatever interim measure we introduce would take into account some logical rationale or basis for whatever new grant program is introduced. It might go beyond those municipalities that have been discussed in this House.

Mr. Warner: It’s called equal punishment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member could not dispute the equity of that. He wouldn’t want to deprive some of the smaller municipalities of some assistance. He doesn’t want it all for himself.

Mr. Cooke: I think you will find that we have lost $30 million.

Mr. Warner: Just because they didn’t vote Tory.

CO-PAYMENT FEES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Health, if he will return to his seat.

Mr. Makarchuk: Are you going to the meeting in Renfrew on Friday?

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister aware of the hardship that his so-called co-payment plan for chronic care patients will impose upon pensioners such as the elderly lady in my area who may lose her home in order to pay the $9.80-a-day charge for her husband’s long-term hospitalization for his chronic illness? Can the minister explain why the co-payment plan discriminates against pensioners, since a family of two earning less than $15,000 a year is generally exempt from paying copayments, while a couple over 65 and receiving OAS is not exempt?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, the honourable member, I am sure, has explained to that constituent that his party caucus supported that recommendation in October --

Mr. Wildman: No, no.

Mr. Cassidy: It is another distortion.

Mr. Warner: Stop distorting things.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sure the member has also explained that at no point when the report was considered in this House or in the committee did they protest.

Mr. Cassidy: You are going to get Bette Stephenson’s reputation.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think the member will know that in arriving at the details of the co-payment we have been able, I think by and large, to avoid the kind of horror stories which the honourable member tried to describe. For instance, we have not, unlike other jurisdictions, included at any point in the calculations a consideration of the assets of the individual patient. So the home would not, in fact, be counted against the ability of that individual to pay. It would be counted strictly on the question of their pensions.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister saying that if indeed they are pensioners, they are treated differently than if they were married and under 65 and earning less than $15,000? If that is what he is saying, can he explain how this person is supposed to pay the $9.80 and still maintain her home when her income is only her pension and her husband’s pension?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The material was considered by the select committee and by the other bodies which made this recommendation to us -- the senior citizens’ advisory council, the Taylor committee and the various other associations. They made that recommendation based on the principle that an individual is, at that time, receiving income to support him in the community. Inasmuch as he is not in the community, the principle is that that money should be applied against his support where he is -- namely, in this case a chronic-care facility, or for that matter in a nursing home perhaps, or a home for the aged or whatever.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: It would appear that in this chronic-care charge there are a number of people who are in wheelchairs, who are chronically confined to chronic-care hospitals but who are still alert in mind and relatively young in age -- still, in fact, in a position where they should be able, and ought, to participate in the community from time to time, go downtown, shop, go to a play.

Given that it costs about $50 or more just to get transportation for these wheelchair patients to go downtown, can the minister make some provision so that they are not reduced to $45 a month, which is what you are now allowing; so that the meagre alimony allowances or meagre pensions -- which they may have built up during their years of employment -- are not going to be taken away from them, thus imprisoning them in the chronic-care hospital. For those of active mind who need to participate in the community, will the minister try to make some special arrangement?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will take a look at that and see if something can be done.

GRAND RIVER FLOODING

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I might say to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who asked me a supplementary question on Friday I guess, that I did get some further information over the phone this morning from the general manager of the Grand River Conservation Authority regarding dynamiting. The full report is coming here by land, sea or air and has not yet arrived.

Mr. Peterson: it is coming by water, that is why.

Hon. Mr. Auld: “Sea,” I said. Sometimes the mail takes a long time and you wonder whether it comes via the Suez or the Panama Canal.

The Grand River Conservation Authority -- this deals with the area between Paris and Brantford -- has no written policy on dynamiting to relieve ice jams. But it has been the practice of the former commission, and the present authority, not to dynamite ice jams but to eliminate their formation by flow regulation in the Grand River within the limits of the capacity of the existing reservoirs.

This latter method has proved to be successful. Dynamiting has been carried out by local authorities with or, more often, without the knowledge of the conservation authority. A personal inspection was carried out by the assistant general manager on January 11, and in a meeting with town officials he advised against dynamiting.

On March 5 town officials attempted to secure an expert on dynamiting the ice I am without success. In a meeting between town and conservation authority officials all agreed it was too dangerous to attempt dynamiting because of the potential for damage and possible loss of life.

The jam partially broke up of its own accord as a result of high river flow.

Mr. Makarchuk: In view of the fact the conservation authorities are dependent upon provincial funding for channel improvements and dike construction and repairs, will the minister ensure the conservation authorities have adequate funding to build the channels and the dikes they know they require now and therefore prevent these incidents from recurring in the future?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am afraid I couldn’t give such blanket assurance. The honourable member --

Mr. Makarchuk: You are going to continue with a flood a year.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As the honourable member is aware, the conservation authorities were primarily set up some years ago to deal --

Mr. McClellan: Minister of natural disasters.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right. And we all know they have to be repaired. And they’ve got the plans and the studies and everything.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. Peterson: Will you provide money to build an ark?

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- with flooding and, in some cases, drought problems --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you part of the conservative or liberal wing?

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- to regulate, within human capability, the water levels in the watersheds of the province. The conservation authorities and the local municipalities that put up varying percentages of the funds --

Mr. Makarchuk: They would be happy to do it, providing you put up your per cent.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- may decide, in their own judgement, generally speaking, the priorities of that authority.

Mr. Makarchuk: The priorities are floods now, repairs later.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will undertake to pursue the matter of flood control again with the Grand River authority --

Mr. Warner: You guys are one big ice jam.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and I would say we will certainly be pursuing the matter of federal participation in the matter along the lower Thames.

Mr. Makarchuk: That is one every four years you are having now.

Mr. Speaker: It’s my understanding that the Minister of Energy happens to be the same person who has the answer to a question previously asked.

Mr. Sargent: This time take the marbles out of your mouth.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if he can understand the minister -- is there something the matter with the sound system or something more seriously and personally wrong with me? I cannot understand him.

An hon. member: Half the time he doesn’t know what he’s saying either.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I sometimes need it myself, Mr. Speaker, as some people have suspected for some time.

Mr. McClellan: Try reading it upside down.

HYDRO LOAD FORECASTS

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have an answer to a question posed by the member for Ottawa Centre last Friday.

The question was: “Does the minister, therefore, reject the Ministry of Energy forecast which indicates very clearly that if oil and gas supplies are uncertain that will, in fact, lower the rate of growth for electricity demand to a rate even lower than the ministry already forecasts?”

The ministry’s energy demand model was developed to help assess how long-term energy demand would be affected by changes in population, economic conditions, technology, or governmental policy. The ministry used the model for three scenarios -- current trends, low energy use, uncertain oil and gas -- which were developed to assess the potential for energy I conservation and substitution --

Mr. Sargent: Throw in a couple of stories.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and not to provide a peak electrical load forecast as the basis for planning Ontario Hydro’s generation program.

Mr. Makarchuk: Let us know when you get to the punch line.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As the honourable members are aware, the ministry recently presented forecasts for those three scenarios to the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. The scenario referred to as current trends, forecasts annual growth in electrical energy demand as 3.7 per cent from 1976 to 1985. “The uncertain oil and gas scenario” referred to by the honourable member --

Mr. Martel: I surrender.

Hon. Mr. Mild: -- was only one-twentieth of one per cent lower to 1985 and it was based on a stringent energy conservation assumption. This scenario did not assume actual shortages of oil or gas which could have significant effects on electricity demand. For the comparable period, the same 1976-85 period, Ontario Hydro’s 1979 forecast of peak electricity demand indicates an annual growth of 4.1 per cent.

Mr. Sargent: Time, Mr. Speaker. Time.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Taking into account the different approaches and purposes they are, in fact, quite close.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister saying that in fact the Ministry of Energy forecast is I a nice idea which gives some general indications but is not to be relied on? Because if that’s the case, why did they I do it at all; and will we ever get some accurate forecasts of future energy requirements from the Ministry of Energy which can be used in order to give clear indications of government policy to Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I really think I covered that when I said there were three different scenarios looking at three different possibilities.

Mr. Kerrio: Take your pick.

Hon. Mr. Auld: We were looking at different sets of circumstances --

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, yes. They pump in circumstances like you wouldn’t believe.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and using different assumptions, as I said the other day; some 1,500 to 2,000 assumptions.

Mr. Kerrio: Half are high and half are low. You’re laughing.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I just want to repeat that this was not second-guessing Hydro; we were looking at quite different possibilities.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Halton-Burlington.

Mr. J. Reed: A point of clarification, Mr. Speaker: The minister used the figure 4.1 per cent, and I believe that the Hydro load forecast, if I remember correctly, was 4.7 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Add: No, for the period from 1976 to 1985, Hydro was looking at a longer period, as I recall.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I wonder if he is aware of the details in the planning of a dump site for Lewiston, New York, that would add poisons to the Niagara River including many dangerous chemicals -- I won’t list them here. I wonder if the minister is aware that the mayor himself, the mayor of Niagara-on-the-Lake and many citizens on the American and Canadian sides are most concerned. I wonder what involvement the minister has with the very, very dangerous situation which would exist if they put in place this plan to pump an additional two million gallons into the lower Niagara River, actually above the intake of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Presumably, if that were to happen, the member from there might have to get bottled water.

Mr. Makarchuk: They would probably bottle it and sell it as Ontario wine.

Mr. Speaker: That was directed to the Minister of the Environment, you said?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: But you weren’t looking at him.

Mr. Kerrio: No. I never do.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had my hair cut on the weekend and I had a shower this morning; I really don’t understand. In that case, I should address the member for Humber or somebody down here in reply.

Mr. Sweeney: It’s called discrimination.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, we are aware of that situation, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the member let me say that we are very interested. There are a few mistakes that the member over there has made -- wherever he is. Oh, I’m sorry, there he is.

May I be serious on this item, because it is one of importance? I would like to back up just a little bit. The member used a couple of words that I think I would have to ask him to reconsider a little bit. They are treated wastes. That’s awfully important: they are treated wastes.

Mr. Kerrio: Poorly treated, like the Love Canal. Questionably treated.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Secondly, those treated wastes have been analysed. Before the company is allowed to discharge them into the stream, they will receive approvals. So we have a treated waste that will be analysed and then permission given. It will not be permitted to go into the waters until those permissions have been granted. I think that is awfully important.

Thirdly, we are looking at specific limits for certain chemicals. In other words, we will do a one-by-one analysis to make sure. We are in close contact with officials from New York State. I can assure the member we will be very sure that we do not negotiate away any of his health or the health of the citizens. Let me put that clearly on the line. We will be closely monitoring what is being done and we will assure him we will not tolerate anything but treated and analysed waste going into our water.

Mr. Kerrio: I certainly realize that the affluent is what is being discharged, but what we are talking about --

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not the affluent, it is the effluent.

Mr. Kerrio: The water that mm out after it has been treated.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s what you still are. You are affluent.

Mr. McClellan: He’s always been a little guy.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary question?

Mr. Kerrio: It is very difficult with all the interjections over there. The concern that I have is that while the treated waste --

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are just all jealous over here at your affluence.

Mr. Martel: That is where some of them belong.

Mr. Kerrio: I will start over again. Does the minister realize that 10 to 20 times more than the accepted levels of chemicals would go into the water? What we are concerned about are the accepted levels of the chemicals entering the water. The problem is the minister is going to consider just isolated areas, but if he keeps adding them together --

Mr. MacDonald: The water will sink.

Mr. Kerrio: -- he has to realize that only 25 years ago there was commercial fishing in the Niagara River but it doesn’t exist any longer because every one of them has been subjected to minimal --

Mr. MacDonald: You could walk on the water.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been no question so far.

Mr. Kerrio: The question then is --

Mr. Speaker: You had your opportunity.

Mr. Kerrio: The question is serious.

Mr. Ashe: Sit down.

CANADA METAL COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I refer to the lead levels of Canada Metal’s plant on Eastern Avenue in Riverdale riding, as reported in the ministry’s reports for January and February and as reported in the Globe and Mail last Friday. My question is probably in four parts:

1. What lead level readings has the minister in his March report with respect to Canada Metal?

2. Why is there such a long delay, of anywhere from four to six months before his reports are issued with respect to the lead level readings?

3. What steps is the minister taking to enforce his standards or to penalize the company for having breached those standards as a result of the information shown in his reports?

4. What, in the minister’s direct assessment and judgement is the continuing health hazard in Riverdale riding which has existed for so long about this plant?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’ll have to take some of that and reply to the member because part of the question, or one part at least, was certainly very specific. I’ll try to be specific in reply.

The levels vary a great deal, as I’m sure the member is well aware. At the moment, we’re convinced that the high levels -- or the higher than desirable levels -- are pretty well confined to the industrial park. So, regarding the member’s question relative to the residents: I think we can assure him that the residents are in no hazard whatsoever. Very seldom is the reading in the residential portion of Riverdale riding at any level that would cause concern.

However, the level in the industrial park is an equal concern, so I’m not suggesting to the member that we’re not concerned about that part of it.

We’re finding that a good deal of the problem is in the operation of the plant and our staff is meeting with the company today, as a matter of fact. I guess the meeting’s going on right now.

We met with them some time ago and we have had a good deal of discussion with the plant operators. We feel that a lot of it is in the operation of the plant itself. So we’re meeting today to try to come to a firmer position with the company regarding better operation of their plant. I’ll be glad to report the outcome of that meeting -- plus the information that I should give you, as part of the question that I have not responded to -- in the next day or two.

Mr. Renwick: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that a block meeting of residents was held with a representative of his ministry on December 12, at which the latest information available to that meeting were the readings in April and May of last year? Is he aware that at that meeting there was assurance given that, in fact, the matter was under control, and yet the ministry’s January and February reports indicate that the standard of five was exceeded at least eight times and was over the maximum of eight in those readings that are referred to in those reports?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the problem is, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the member, that the necessary controls are there.

In theory, there should be no problem, but that doesn’t prove to be the case, so again it makes what I was saying earlier true: that the problem is not with the equipment itself but how it is operating. Therefore, I think it was reasonable to say it’s under control. It should be under control because the necessary equipment to do so is there, but making sure that there are no levels exceeding our standards is proving to be somewhat difficult.

We are meeting again -- and I underline the word again -- with the company and I will report on that. I will take what the member says very much to our concern because we share that concern that the operation of that plant should guarantee that we don’t have the ups and downs of the levels that we have been experiencing.

TURKEY QUOTAS

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Further to my representations on behalf of some of the farmers in my area to the minister, and I suppose it reflects concern from other farmers throughout the province, farmers who have been precluded from buying small numbers of turkey poults for their own use or for family use, prohibited by the turkey marketing board, could the minister bring us up to date on the situation as to how it stands at the present time?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe this was brought to my attention and I want to thank the honourable member and some of the other members who have brought it to my attention.

An lion, member: There are some real turkeys over there.

Hon. W. Newman: Keep it up.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Sounds like another resources answer.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the turkey marketing board met last Thursday I believe, or Friday -- I can’t remember which -- and made a ruling that they will give a free quota of 25 birds to any individual farmer in the province of Ontario who would like to raise birds. The Farm Products Marketing Board has declined that recommendation of tie turkey board and will be back to the turkey board. It’s not that they don’t want a farmer to raise a few turkeys in his own yard, but there is some doubt about whether he should have to have a permit of any kind if he only wants to raise them for his home use.

Mr. Nixon: That’s what happens with Tories.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

PETITION

CO-PAYMENT FEES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I would like to present today with the names of nearly 6,000 people from Windsor -- 5,942 to be exact -- who oppose the $9.80 deterrent fee to chronic care patients. I think it’s fair to say that the people of Windsor, through this petition, are saying to the government that they do not want a deterrent fee. They want universal accessibility to our health care system and a chronic home care program.

Mr. Wildman: We have never supported senior citizens losing their homes.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing general government committee be authorized to meet concurrently with the House this afternoon.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on Thursday, March 15, the House will adjourn at 6 p.m. and stand adjourned until 2 p.m., Tuesday, March 27.

Motion agreed to.

[3:15]

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PORTUGUESE CLUB OF LONDON INCORPORATED ACT

Mr. Peterson moved first reading of Bill Pr2, An Act to revive the Portuguese Club of London Incorporated.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nixon: You’re losing the Portuguese vote.

YOUNG PEOPLE’S THEATRE ACT

Mrs. Campbell moved first reading of Bill Pr3, An Act respecting Young People’s Theatre.

Motion agreed to.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 10, An Act to Relieve Persons from Liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency, Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency, first aid assistance or medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident or other sudden emergency.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Consideration of the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Watson moved that a humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable P. M. McGibbon, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

May it please Your Honour, we, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to have the opportunity of moving this speech from the throne of this third session of the 31st Parliament.

I would first, at the outset, like to say a word on behalf of all the members of the House in expressing appreciation to the Lieutenant Governor’s gracious acceptance of a year’s extension of her term. The people of Ontario have derived substantial benefits from her happy and compassionate dedication to her responsibilities and we are grateful for her continuing efforts on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a sincere word of appreciation to you as Speaker of this House, for the efficient and competent manner in which the role has been carried out and for your personal guidance and encouragement to one who is a newly elected member of this Legislature.

The speech from the throne represents in broad terms the philosophy which this government, of which I am pleased to be a part, plans to follow during the coming session. Although I am a relative rookie to this Legislature, I am indeed pleased that I am able to accept and promote the philosophy carried out in the presentation made to us on Tuesday last.

I am particularly pleased to endorse the thoughts regarding Canadian unity and the part that Ontario will be playing in this unfolding development. It has been a source of pride and encouragement to all the people of Ontario to have recently witnessed the excellent leadership provided by the Honourable William G. Davis, Premier of this province, with regard to Canadian unity and with regard to explaining the position of Ontario to our neighbours to the south.

There can surely be no disagreement in this House on this province’s stand on Canadian unity and it is good that our government and our leader have taken a firm position on a crucial question of Canadian unity.

Mr. Haggerty: Thirty years too late.

Mr. Watson: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the example set by the Premier of this province in the recent meetings where Canadian unity was being discussed serves only as an example of the leadership capabilities of the Premier.

I am aware that it was some 20 years ago that the present Premier had the honour of moving the speech from the throne. I am aware that our Premier must have had some of the same feelings that I have when I come to this Legislature, as he was elected to replace one T. L. Kennedy, who for many years was Minister of Agriculture in this province and was for a short period Premier.

Mr. Cureatz: A great man.

Mr. Watson: I can identify with that feeling because I have the pleasure of representing the riding of Chatham-Kent in this Legislature, which for 15 years was held by the Honourable Darcy McKeough whose ability and philosophy are well known to all members of this House.

I therefore deem it a great pleasure to represent the riding of Chatham-Kent in this Legislature, realizing that I have a large pair of shoes to fill, just as I know the Premier of this province must have felt when he came to this Legislature knowing that he had a large pair of shoes to fill. I am certainly both pleased and proud to be a member of the government of this side of the House and to be able to stand in this Legislature as part of the team under the capable leadership of Premier William Davis.

Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne not only represents the thoughts and philosophy of our Premier, but the various cabinet ministers who make up the present government. I should like to acknowledge the leadership given this province by the various ministers of this government and also to extend my sincere personal appreciation for the co-operation given to me over the past few months as I have become aware of the activities here at Queen’s Park.

When I first spoke in this House last December I referred to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism slogan, “We treat you royally.” I referred to that because of the fact that I felt the entire Legislature had given me that kind of treatment after having been elected here.

Mr. Haggerty: First time Royal Crown has been seen for a number of years.

Mr. Watson: I have not changed my opinion on that particular fact and perhaps it is somewhat of interest that I note that in the speech from the throne we are going to have phase two of “We treat you royally,” and I hope that phase two can be extended to me in the coming months.

Mr. Haggerty: What happened to the trillium?

Mr. Wildman: Just ask Westinghouse.

Mr. Watson: I also would like to have it, as noted in the indication in the speech from the throne, that our tourist-oriented people can accept this spirit of goodwill and acceptance that I have experienced here.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we will be dealing during the coming session with both matters of economics and social services. It appears to me that at a time when we all concur that we are in need of restraint in government that we must strike a delicate balance between those things which we might consider to be economic and those things which we might consider to be social.

It seems to me that common sense would tell us that to emphasize one without the other would be a mistake. We most also appreciate that all of these programs must be conducted within the overall general restraint program to which government is committed. Someone once said that money isn’t everything, but it’s away ahead of whatever is in second place, and I well realize that if we did not have any constraints on the budget expenditures it would be easier for everyone --

Mr. Nixon: Something else was on that list.

Mr. Watson: -- to be a more popular politician in this province and in this country.

I am pleased that the government, as a matter of priority, will be taking specific measures to ensure the Ontario economy continues to expand in a positive and productive fashion. I represent an area of Ontario where this process has already begun The initiative by this government to conclude the proposal whereby the Ford Motor Company located its new engine plant in southwestern Ontario is already paying off. Because the main Ford plant expansion is to be in Windsor, there have already been additional announcements by Ford for further expansion in the area of a casting plant.

I would like to point out that the second plant was located without any government assistance, and that there is little doubt that the location was decided by the fact the major plant was to be in Windsor. Similar examples in the economy can be cited throughout all of southwestern Ontario as suppliers to the automotive industry, both large and small, are thinking positively in terms of expansion and growth. This of course means growth of the economy in this province.

I was particularly pleased, in the speech from the throne, to see the apprenticeship and skilled trades programs were being revamped in the province. This development, to me, goes hand in hand with the encouragement for industries to locate in this province.

Mr. Haggerty: More talk, no action.

Mr. Watson: As a nation, we are told about the unemployed. As a politician in southwestern Ontario, I am told about the need for skilled tradesmen.

Mr. Haggerty: All talk, no action.

Mr. Watson: I am therefore pleased the emphasis is to be placed on this type of program. It will lower our unemployment rate in this province and in the country, and at the same time train people for jobs which will be available as our economy expands.

I would like to concur with the government in the speech from the throne when it refers to the efforts that are being made to have the federal-provincial programs renewed with regard to the ARDA and other similar programs. It is a fact in my riding that much of the land would be swamp and bullrushes if it were not for the drainage program and those kinds of projects.

Mr. Wildman: You have come out of the swamp.

Mr. Watson: Some of this land is in danger because the rebuilding of the dikes along the St. Clair, the Sydenham, and the Thames rivers has not been completed. In the township of Dover, which I represent, approximately 30,000 acres have to be pumped at the present time. When I left the riding of Chatham-Kent this morning, approximately 8,000 of those acres were covered with water. Part of the blame for this has to be attached to the fact that the diking project was not completed. We are told it is not going to be completed because the federal government has seen fit not to provide enough funds.

Mr. Wildman: That’s restraint for you.

Mr. Watson: The flooding itself was very extensive. The flooding is the worst in the memories of many people who live in that area. I visited a house yesterday with at least five feet of water in it, up to the middle of the windows.

The cattle -- at one farm it is difficult to get an accurate assessment of how many have died. I circled the area in the Ontario Provincial Police helicopter on Saturday. They have a large pile of ensilage and the cattle were crowded onto the top of that as thick as they could be. You could just see the tops of the posts in the fence-line feeders.

We have had all kinds of estimates: it would appear that 70 to 100 cattle lost is the most realistic estimate that I have heard. To show how rumours move, I have heard all the way from 40 to 700 lost; I prefer to think in terms of 70 to 100. But they do have over 1,000 cattle in that particular feed lot.

Mr. Riddell: Is that the Bradley estate?

Mr. Watson: That is the Bradley establishment.

I think it is terrible that this sort of thing would happen in one’s riding. We have to make the best of things. One thing it points out to the people in Ottawa undoubtedly is the fact that this diking project has to be completed to prevent such things from happening again in the future.

As the member for Chatham-Kent, where the agricultural industry is so extremely important, I am pleased to endorse the policies outlined in the speech from the throne with regard to the promotion and eating of Ontario-grown food. Food prices are a topic for discussion in almost any group, and information to be provided to the consumers regarding food prices as outlined in the speech from the throne will be useful.

[3:30]

I think it should be pointed out to this assembly, and to the people of Ontario, that past programs of this government have been extremely useful in helping to maintain reasonable food prices. I am very sure there are those here, and certainly across Ontario, who consider beef prices much too high today. But I would like to point out there is no doubt in my mind that the price of beef would have been higher in Ontario today if it had not been for this government’s cow-calf program back in 1975, 1976 and 1977.

This government had a program which allowed farmers to hang on, if I could use that expression, and protected them from the need to market their cows at that particular time. There is little doubt that because the price of beef at that time was ridiculously low farmers would have sold their cows and the steers and heifers that are presently coming to market would never have been born in this province. I am certainly well aware that the price of beef has gone up dramatically, but perhaps it is of some consolation to the consumer that the price would have been even higher if the government had not undertaken this cow-calf program in the past. I would hope that the examples set in the past will be continued in the future, as required by the situation.

I was also particularly pleased to note in the speech from the throne -- and I would endorse them -- the programs regarding the foodland guidelines, and as well an indication of a program for soil and water conservation. Perhaps it is a motherhood statement to say that we should be saving farm land. This statement can be interpreted in several ways. We can save farm land from urban encroachment, or we can save farm land from washing or blowing away.

I endorse the foodland guidelines which encourage the common sense use of land, which is our basic resource. I believe it would be a mistake to say that we should never take any farm land for other uses; but good planning can and will ensure that land that must be taken is put to its best use.

I could refer specifically to the problems in my immediate area. It doesn’t matter which direction you go from Chatham or Wallaceburg, you are surrounded by excellent farm land in that area. It is, therefore, really not a viable argument to say that the lands on which cities must expand are the poor lands. We must, however, ensure that where annexation or industrial use of land does take place it is done in such a manner as to minimize the loss of our farm land in this province.

In a similar way, we know that land is being lost across this province by wind and by water erosion. The changing crop programs have had their economic benefit; but they are making our soil more prone to erosion from natural phenomena. I believe, therefore, that it is in the best interests of the agricultural community as a whole, in this province, to promote activities which would save our farm land; not only from urban encroachment where this is a problem in some cases, but in areas where soil is lost due to wind and water.

I believe that if the people of this province would think of our agricultural areas as a factory it might be put into some perspective for them. If we can think of each crop-producing acre -- or hectare as some people now want to call it, and that’s not a very popular term in the rural community -- if we can think of each specific area as a factory we can have many points illustrated that were outlined in the speech from the throne.

There is a concern over the conservation of energies related to this factory, because this factory uses as a source of energy the sun; which was there yesterday, is there today and will be there tomorrow.

The process of producing food by means of this energy source is renewable and continuous from year to year. Contrary to many energy sources which are becoming depleted, our scientists, in co-operation with the agricultural community, are learning how to produce more food from an acre of land by means of this ultimate energy supplied by the sun. We do use some inputs -- some help from commercial fertilizers, some machines to till the soil and the like -- but I am pleased that reference was made in the speech from the throne to the fact that legislation would be considered to protect some of these very large investments in farm machinery which farmers must make by way of some kind of protection regarding warranties.

Our agricultural open-air factories in Ontario are very efficient. I like to think that these open-air factories in the riding of Chatham-Kent are the most effective and efficient in Canada. I am pleased that the government of this province will be supporting the agricultural industry and I would hope that, by recognizing how important our green-acre factories are all across this province, due consideration will be given by all ministries whenever their programs touch this very basic and important industry.

We do appreciate the efforts of the conservation authorities -- and I did mention the one locally this past weekend -- but in particular I would mention the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority and the progress to date of the W. Darcy McKeough Dam, which will allow the town of Wallaceburg to breathe somewhat easier every time the river rises.

Mr. Nixon: I haven’t heard those words in that order for a long time.

Mr. Wildman: Did you say “Damn Darcy McKeough”?

Mr. Watson: I said the Darcy McKeough Dam.

I am reminded at this point of the two fellows in Florida at this particular time of the year who were discussing how they were there. One fellow said to the other, “I’m here because I had a fire.” The other fellow sat back and said, “I’m here because I had a flood.” There was a long silence and finally the other chap came back and said, “Say, how do you have a flood?” Well, some of the projects that are going on down our way I by way of the W. Darcy McKeough Dam will let the people in Wallaceburg breathe a little easier during flood seasons.

As one who came to this Legislature from the public service of Ontario, I was personally pleased with the reference in Her Honour’s address to the fact that attention is to be given to the matter of public servants in this province who serve the public. It is and was my personal philosophy that when an individual is given a satisfactory explanation regarding any decision or policy, the individual will at least appreciate the public servant involved, even though the decision may not be entirely as the individual would have liked it.

It is when people do not have access to information or individuals who make decisions that the bond of trust which should exist between citizens of this province and the public servants of this province starts to break down. I therefore heartily support the intention of this government to foster programs which will encourage mutual trust between people and the government.

I was proud to be a civil servant in this province for 20 years, and I know that there are many others in the public sector who are equally proud of their work and accomplishments in serving the government and serving the people. I therefore am convinced that programs to encourage trust between people and the government will be appreciated by those who are dedicated public servants in this province.

I would like at this time to refer specifically to the Ontario Provincial Police and their actions in my particular tiding this past weekend. They came out as shining examples of public servants, in my opinion. They were there to do the helicopter lifts that were necessary. They were there with their boats late on Friday night -- I was out where they were taking off from -- prepared to go up and down the concession roads with the boats to take people out. They patrolled the area on a 24-hour basis to keep anybody out who had no business being there.

I would like it recorded that the people of Chatham-Kent, and in particular the people of Dover township who were affected, particularly appreciated the efforts of the Ontario Provincial Police in this disaster that we had.

I was particularly pleased to hear in the speech from the throne, and it was later outlined by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), that because of the success of the special transit services for the physically disabled in five communities across Ontario that services are to be made permanent and introduced on a gradual basis to other communities without delay.

Chatham was one of the five communities in which the pilot project was based. It was well received and considered worthwhile in our community. It was a program which considers the special difficulties encountered by the physically handicapped or disabled people. It is particularly gratifying to know that it will become permanent.

While addressing this assembly today, I should like to issue to everyone an invitation to visit Kent county, including the riding of Chatham-Kent and the riding of Kent-Elgin. I hope the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) is paying attention to this because I want to give him a little credit here. We want members to visit our riding between September 25 and September 29, 1979, when Kent county is hosting the International Ploughing Match and farm machinery show. If they accept my invitation, they will be among approximately a quarter of a million visitors who will be visiting Kent county this September.

Those in this assembly who represent urban areas will have an opportunity to see the best farms in Canada first-hand. They will have an opportunity to see 130 acres of tented city with the latest in farm equipment on display. Farming has become an extremely big business. This event will be an event where all members can see the tremendous equipment that is used on our farms today. It has been 60 years since the International Ploughing Match was in Kent county.

With regard to the event, I have compared Kent county to the expectant mother. Kent county is an expectant mother. There were a few problems in the conception of this particular thing. There was a bit of morning sickness but that is all over. The thing is now organized. There will likely be a few last-minute labour pains. I want to tell members that when the 1979 International Ploughing Match is born in Kent county on September 25, 1979, it is going to be the biggest and best baby that was ever produced in Kent county. It’s going to be perfect in every way. All the parents, grandparents, cousins and anybody else who had anything to do with the bringing of this baby to Kent county are going to be awfully anxious to show it off. Therefore, members are invited to come to Kent county in southwestern Ontario and see our crops at their best.

The symbol for the Kent county International Ploughing Match this year is the To-Be Co-Be, which is a figure that has a tomato head, a chest of beef, a body of corn and feet of beans. I want to assure members those are only four of the products produced in Kent county for which we are known across this country. I want to assure them also that the International Ploughing Match this year is the outstanding outdoor farm equipment show in Canada. I do hope they will come and see us at that particular time.

I think it worthwhile to point out at this time that the city of Chatham has initiated a proposal under the downtown revitalization program that could serve as a shining example for downtown redevelopment across Ontario. The proposal includes the development of a nine-acre block of land in the downtown core of the city of Chatham. It is my hope that this government, through the Ministry of Housing and the downtown revitalization program, will see fit to lend funds to the city of Chatham under this program so that this project can be undertaken.

I would like to point out that the city of Chatham has already spent over $6 million without special government assistance on rebuilding its downtown section by way of a new civic centre and by way of an entirely renovated King Street, which is the main street in Chatham. The inclusion of the city of Chatham in the downtown redevelopment program will certainly enhance the downtown area of our city and serve as an example to other centres as to what can be done with the downtown area of a community.

The riding of Chatham-Kent has a great deal to offer for both work and pleasure. I mentioned earlier the spirit of optimism in our industrial community which prevails in my particular riding. Those who want to enjoy recreation might appreciate the duck hunting or ice fishing that Lake St. Clair is noted for. Several of our tourist establishments, such as the Wheels Inn in Chatham or the Oaks Inn in Wallaceburg, have special package programs for those who want to come and enjoy the recreational facilities that are available in our area.

As one drives through our rich farm land one cannot help but be impressed with the wall-to-wall crops that exist in our particular area, the ones that are so neatly tended and well produced. I am particularly proud to represent the citizens of the riding of Chatham-Kent in this Legislature and have been equally pleased and proud to be the mover of the speech from the throne.

[3:45]

In summary, I would like to say that the speech from the throne has many attributes with which I can identify. There is an element of share. This element of share, to me, means that we are going to give attention and. resources to both economic matters and social problems.

There is an element of care. The matters discussed in Her Honour’s speech from the throne indicate this government’s concern for many matters, and particularly for those who are less fortunate than some of us who are able to operate on our own.

I also note with interest that there is an element of being fair -- that’s spelled f-a-i-r not f-a-r-e, by the way.

In an overall economic climate, or an overall climate where this government will, and is continuing, to practice restraint involving the use of public funds, there must be some type of rationing. The attribute of being fair expressed in this address will, therefore, make the proposals acceptable to the people of this province, and therefore I’m sure acceptable to the members of this Legislature.

In these elements of share, of care and of being fair, Her Honour’s address is made acceptable to me, and I’m sure to the Legislature. I hope the legislation resulting from the ideas expressed in this speech from the throne will benefit the people of this province. Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to second the motion that a humble address be presented to Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor.

I rise at this time, in this House, with mixed feelings. Any pride or personal satisfaction or excitement is tempered substantially by the set of tragic and unfortunate circumstances that led to a by-election in Sault Ste. Marie through the untimely passing of an associate of mine, and a colleague of yours, who graced this Legislative Assembly and the government of this province with such a high measure of dedication, competency and wit.

I am sure I will find no dissenters when I refer to his distinguished career in public service, as first an alderman and then mayor of Sault Ste. Marie; and then his tenure as a member of this House, as a backbencher, a parliamentary assistant and the holder of three different portfolios. The Honourable John Rhodes had far too much to offer his riding, this province and this country when he was so suddenly taken from us.

He had maintained an excellent tradition of representation of the riding of Sault Ste. Marie established by Arthur Wishart, a former Attorney General of this government, and his predecessor as the member for Sault Ste. Marie the late Harry Lyons; I follow in their footsteps with a great deal of humility.

As the late Mr. Rhodes held this House, its traditions, its responsibilities and its members on both sides with great respect, I do likewise. I have observed the mechanisms of government, and both the achievements and the frustrations of this House, for many years. I have held in awe those men, regardless of their party affiliation, who seek public office and who, if successful, work diligently, usually at considerable personal sacrifice, to maintain the strength and character of a parliamentary system that is the equal of any in the world today.

I am reminded of the words of the late Indian leader Gandhi, who once stated that there are seven great sins existing in the world today: wealth without work; pleasure without conscience; knowledge without character; commerce without morality; science without humanity; worship without sacrifice; and politics without principle.

I understand that it is traditional for a member in his maiden appearance before this House to refer to his home riding. I will attempt to be brief, although there is much of a positive nature that could be said for the city of Sault Ste. Marie.

For those who have never been to our city and might think that we are far removed from the city of Toronto, let me point out that we are only 55 minutes away by air and are serviced by four flights daily each way. We are actually south of many areas in the United States.

US Interstate Highway 75 begins at the south end of the International Bridge at Sault Ste. Marie, and we can travel to Windsor, Ontario, over a four-lane express highway and nary a stop light along the way, in a trip normally no longer than five hours.

We are blessed with a community of many cultures, a city surrounded by the finest countryside and the clearest waters that one could hope to find anywhere in this great country today; and a city that has progressed so rapidly and has made so many exciting improvements, thanks to a municipal government and administration that has been farsighted and the assistance of senior levels of government. Our waterfront on historic St. Mary’s River has been almost completely reclaimed from the docks, oil tanks and marine operations that once occupied it. It now serves as the site for one of the finest civic centres in the country, a magnificent library; and a blend of commercial development, high-rise office accommodation, residential and senior citizen housing and a modern hotel.

We are blessed with an outstanding educational system from kindergarten throughout some of the finest secondary schools in the province, culminating in a highly successful community college and a struggling but productive university college. In fact, two distinguished members of this House, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), taught in our secondary school systems.

Mr. Nixon: For $2,800 a year.

Mr. Turner: You were overpaid and under-worked.

Hon. W. Newman: How much did you pay in taxes?

Mr. Ramsay: Recreational facilities, both natural and constructed, are the envy of any city our size in the province. Our little theatre groups, our musical comedy guilds, our operetta and opera societies and our art galleries, all maintain a level of excellence that consistently results in recognition across this country.

We are blessed with a buoyant economy, largely attributable to the existence of one of the world’s most efficient steel mills, the Algoma Steel Corporation Limited, which in turn is indebted to some of the most productive workers on the North American continent. Since 1973 Algoma has spent $325 million on expansion and modernization. In addition, $25 million has been spent in the same period of time on air and water quality control. Algoma Steel has continually turned its profits back into its operations and has recently announced expansion and modernization programs to take place in the next relatively short period of time that will total over $125 million.

While Ontario Hydro provides power to the city of Toronto at $26 per thousand kilowatts per month -- as compared to New York at $82, Fredericton at $57, Vancouver at $33 and Detroit at $41 -- Sault Ste. Marie gets its power even more cheaply thanks to the Great Lakes Power Corporation Limited, which will commence building a new hydraulic power plant within our city limits next month at a cost of close to $100 million. That plant will assure the industrial stability of our city.

The Algoma Central Railway, with its headquarters in Sault Ste. Marie, has over the past few years completely diversified what was once almost exclusively a rail operation. They now own the second largest fleet of self-unloaders on the Great Lakes. They own a dry dock in Collingwood, a trucking company in southwestern Ontario and a helicopter company in Ottawa. They have redeveloped many of our waterfront buildings and properties: they operate a large and modern shopping mall, a hotel, office towers and a senior citizens’ complex. They are now into the same type of planned development in Elliot Lake.

With a devalued dollar, the Sault Ste. Marie plant of the Abitibi Paper Company and the Sault Ste. Marie plant of Weyerhaeuser Limited are enjoying prosperous times, but this does not obscure the fact that Abitibi in particular is operating with aged facilities. Both companies have spent considerable sums of money as their share in maintaining the environmental benefits of our area.

We are a closely knit community and we look after our own. For example, the United Way campaign is one of the most successful, percentage-wise and per capita, on the North American continent, and has been consistently so for years. Fund-raising campaigns for hospitals, YMCAs, churches and other important community amenities almost without exception reach and exceed their targets.

I would like to take just a few moments and share with members information on a rather important natural resource our area has. It is not a secondary industry nor a primary industry. It doesn’t help with our tax assessment, but we can derive a great deal of pride from it. What I am talking about is people, people who were born or raised in Sault Ste. Marie and have gone on to fame provincially, nationally and internationally.

The list is endless but I will try to point out just a very few. In the field of business and industry, Laurence Lamb is the president and general manager of Steel Rock Iron Mines at Atikokan. Jack Keith is a former president of Imperial Tobacco Limited. The late Leonard Walker was president and chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal. Tom Rahilly is the president and chief executive officer of National Steel Car Corporation in Hamilton. Jim Hull is vice-president of manufacturing of the Litton Medical System in Chicago.

Malcolm Hamilton is a former chairman and president of Spruce Falls Pulp and Paper Company. Gino Francolini is the president of Livingston Industries Limited and a director of several companies, including Air Canada. Ron Lively is the president of the Elite Life Insurance Company, with head offices in Vancouver. Right in Sault Ste. Marie, Peter Nixon, whose father served with distinction for 26 years as the Liberal member in the federal House, is group vice-president of manufacturing and mining at Algoma Steel. Carson Weeks is senior vice-president of the same company. Jack Barber has recently retired as vice-chairman and vice-president of Algoma Steel.

Simpson Hollingsworth is chairman of the board and former president of the largest lumber co-op in Canada, Allont of Canada Limited.

In the field of art, Ken Danby, is renowned around the world and many other artists and craftsmen have won respect and recognition of their work, such as Jean Burke, Bob Carmichael, Ken Bradford and Ken McDougall.

Bill Mahoney is the former long-time Canadian president of United Steelworkers of America. Jack O’Driscoff is an Ontario Supreme Court Justice. Dr. Norman Bethune achieved prominence in the Spanish Civil War as a pioneer in battlefield transfusion techniques and is revered by the Chinese nation as the doctor saint of their revolution.

Ron Ianni is dean of law at the University of Windsor. David Johnston, a former AllAmerican, in hockey at Harvard University, is the dean of law at Western and this fall will take over the responsibilities of principal and vice-chancellor at McGill University and he has yet to reach his 37th birthday.

Dr. Temple Kingston is the principal of Canterbury College in Windsor, Alfred Eddy is president of the bar association in New Brunswick. Wilfred Greaves is a former Canadian consul-general in New York City. Abe Rosenthal is the editor of the prestigious New York Times. His older sister is the senior editor of one of the Sunday supplements of the same newspaper.

Fred Rounthwaite was the architect who designed the new CNE stadium, Don Sims is chairman of the Ontario censor board. Bruce Smith, who rebred to all sorts of accolades a month or so ago here in Toronto from the CBC is another Sault boy.

Gary Buck was named the top country music star in Canada in 1975. Donna Ramsay -- regrettably, from my point of view, no relation -- is a household word in country music circles and a star of the Tommy Hunter Show.

Eric Wild is a director of the CBC program Hymn Sing and conductor of various professional music groups in Winnipeg, including the Winnipeg Symphony. Doreen Hume is one renowned as a singer in both Canada and England. Sister Barbara Janni is a member of the Toronto Opera Society.

The late Harry Hamilton, as the Liberal member of Parliament from Sault Ste. Marie, responded to the throne speech with the September 1939 resolution that Canada declare war on Germany.

C. T. Murphy is a past president of the North Atlantic Assembly. Gordon Cunningham is a past president of the Ontario Hospital Association, currently president of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Research Foundation and a director of Princess Margaret Hospital.

Charles Cliffe is the campaign chairman for the Ontario division of the Canadian Cancer Society. Stan Kurisko is past president of the Ontario Society for the Mentally Retarded. Dr. Ken Miller is vice-president of the National Council of YMCAs and Reverend Clifton McKay is a former moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Canada.

No brother combination in any sport in the history of the world has captured more honours than Tony and Phil Esposito.

The list of local boys who starred in the NHL is long and impressive: Jerry Korab, Lou Nanne, Gene Ubriaco, Mart Ravlich, Don Grosso, Marty Pavelich, Bill Coutu, Babe Donnelly, Bill Phillips, Ivan Boldirev, Chico and Wayne Maki, Joe Klukay. In fact, Lou Nanne is now the general manager of the Minnesota North Stars.

[4:00]

Joe Zaharko was one of the greatest badminton players in North America. Alex Denman was the only two-time winner of the Jeff Russel trophy in the eastern conference of the Canadian football championships. Mike Novick, Junior, is one of the finest harness racing drivers in the United States. Benita Rope was the coach of the Canadian gymnastic team in the recent Commonwealth Games.

Morley Torgov wrote a book about Sault Ste. Mario a few years ago, and he won the Stephen Leacock award for humour. Chapters of the book have since been adapted for television. The book’s title, A Good Place to Come From, sums up my feelings completely about Sault Ste. Marie.

While I am proud of Sault Ste. Marie, and while I extol its successes and its features and virtues, I also have to admit to many worries about the community in particular and northern Ontario in general. We truly enjoy the good life in Sault Ste. Marie, but there are areas less fortunate than ours in northern Ontario; there are deficiencies and serious concerns that have to be considered by the members of this House.

Important areas that have to be continually reviewed and assessed include the following:

1. The establishment of secondary industry;

2. The development of natural resources;

3. The further processing of natural resources;

4. Realistic transportation policies;

5. Greater input into decision-making at the provincial level by northern Ontario people and, conversely, less interference in northern Ontario affairs by pressure groups and individuals resident outside of northern Ontario;

6. We require a study of total government receipts from all sources in northern Ontario and a study of total government expenditures in northern Ontario in relation to southern Ontario revenues and expenditures;

7. We have to look at agriculture; do we continue, discontinue or specialize, and in what areas, to serve our markets?

8. We have to improve the ratio of doctors and dentists in northern Ontario;

9. We have to concern ourselves about the exodus of university-trained people from northern Ontario because of the lack of job opportunities;

10. We have to worry ourselves about the problems of skilled and unskilled help for remote areas; and

11. We have to worry ourselves about the enlargement of cultural opportunities in northern Ontario.

I would go back to secondary industry for a moment. I do not know of any item which is discussed more, demanded more or suggested as the complete solution for all the problems for northern Ontario. Every city, town and village wants secondary industry. There are major criteria, though, that we have to look at if we are realistic, and we have to ask these questions:

Is there a major industry present or close by? If so, can it be enlarged or extended or further manufacture existing products? Can byproducts of such industry be further processed to provide additional business and job opportunities?

Can secondary industry be developed, making use of primary products manufactured in northern Ontario?

Can completely new products be developed that are not now available in necessary quantities for present markets?

Can we manufacture a percentage of articles of high value and little weight to overcome the problems of rate charges?

We all have to be concerned about the further development of natural resources. Many of our communities in northern Ontario are based on resource industries to provide a livelihood for the people living nearby. The pulp and paper industry is one example of an industry that provides jobs for dozens of small communities in northern Ontario, but it is an industry with antiquated plants. While they are benefiting now by the devalued dollar, in normal times they are no longer competitive.

While I endorse completely the philosophy of proper environment, is it right that people who reside in Toronto, and who have never been north of Orillia, make the decisions as to whether a town in northern Ontario is going to disappear because of excessive environmental standards?

Right now, many of the industries and mines resident in northern Ontario are spending enormous amounts for developments in other jurisdictions because it is not as viable a proposition to extend operations here. Algoma Steel is investing in an iron ore mine in Michigan. Abitibi is investing in plants in the United States. Inco, as we all know, is investing in Guatemala and overseas.

Mr. Philip: Thanks to this government they are.

Mr. Havrot: That’s an idiotic statement.

Mr. Ramsay: Let us remember that the majority of markets for our products are outside the province. If southern Ontario were taking all of our products, then they should have a large say. However, that’s not the case.

To provide more jobs and opportunities for job improvement, we have to demand extension of and more enlightened public policies conducive to the further processing of the products of our natural resource industries. The first consideration should be development of public policies which give first priority to the benefits to be obtained by the people in the area of the resource. In many cases in the past the primary consideration, and sometimes the only consideration, was how much tax will we or can we as a province receive. Government has to give first consideration to people most directly affected and then work towards policies which will encourage further processing.

We have to concern ourselves about transportation policies. Rates in Ontario are second only to Quebec as the highest in Canada. That’s a tremendously serious problem to us in the north because of our distance from the primary markets.

I was not amused at all to learn of the petition presented by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) requesting a subsidized motor vehicle licence fee of $10 similar to that now enjoyed by the residents in northern Ontario. We pay more for our vehicles to begin with; our gasoline costs are higher; our maintenance and parts costs are higher; and we are confronted with the need for such accessories as snow tires. The $10 licence fee which we enjoy is small compensation indeed for the substantially higher cost of operating a motor vehicle in northern Ontario as compared to southern Ontario. I can’t help wondering whether or not this petition represents a new policy of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Warner: Check in tomorrow.

Mr. Ramsay: Northern Ontario has only 15 members in the Legislature out of a total of 125, yet we have over 80 per cent of the area of this province. As individuals and groups, we in northern Ontario have to start asserting our views, requesting that they be considered and if necessary demanding it. We have a responsibility in northern Ontario, in concert with government, to have our area develop at a rate where young people will at least have a choice of where they wish to work.

Having enunciated these concerns, I must indicate a sense of encouragement in listening to and studying the throne speech, by the establishment of an employment development fund, the monitoring of shifting of economic priorities and the co-ordination of job creation programs. All of these can only help the north.

Further, the acknowledgement that the present educational structure does not meet fully today’s needs for highly skilled persons in the manufacturing and service industries and the implementation of new emphasis on these problems, including the new role of the Minister of Labour, is also most encouraging.

Coming from a labour-oriented market, I am pleased to note the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act designed to reduce the cost of arbitration, to provide third party assistance in resolving grievances prior to arbitration and generally to enable the process to be carried out in the fairest and best possible manner.

I was happy to learn that tourism, which is invaluable to northern Ontario and which experienced a 16 per cent growth in revenue last year, is to receive renewed emphasis by the government in 1979. That can only provide great assistance to the north.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services, together with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications have indicated in the throne speech they will take steps to make permanent a pilot project that has been providing special transportation services for the physically disabled in five communities. One of those pilot communities is Sault Ste. Marie and I am delighted to note the continuance of these programs.

The consideration of a local services board act to address the needs of communities in northern Ontario that lack municipal organization is perhaps long overdue.

I was pleased to note the Ministry of Northern Affairs will seek ways to provide a greater range of television services for remote areas in northern Ontario. This has no bearing whatsoever on my riding, in that we enjoy television services as diversified as any in southern Ontario. However, I have been working personally for several years in concert with the late John Rhodes, and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) who has also worked diligently in this respect, and with the Minister of Northern Affairs and with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, as well as local town councils, in a continuing effort to resolve the problems of inadequate and unreliable television service in remote areas in northern Ontario.

These are just a few examples of positive measures relative to northern Ontario that have been revealed in the Speech from the Throne. There are many others, but time does not permit me the opportunity to review them or to go into any detail on those that I have already commented on.

Mr. Ruston: There’s lots of time.

Mr. Ramsay: In conclusion, while I spoke in some detail earlier about the continuing concerns for secondary industry in northern Ontario, I am delighted to announce that I have been advised by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), that $718,000 has been put aside in his budget for 1979-80 to assist in the assembly, servicing and development of phase II of our industrial park in Sault Ste. Marie, It will be of great assistance to the municipality of Sault Ste. Marie in attracting and encouraging new industry to our area, as well as the development and diversification of existing industry which requires property for expansion.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you and the members a story that I have used on many occasions because I think it’s most appropriate today. It relates to a father and his young son.

The boy was restless and his father wanted to watch the Saturday afternoon football game with some degree of peace and quiet. In order to occupy the youngster he took a map of the world and tore it up into little pieces, thinking that this would keep the boy busy for quite some time.

Much to his surprise the young lad returned in a relatively short period of time with the task accomplished. The dad asked how he had been able to do it so quickly. The boy replied, “Well, it was easy, dad. You see, on the back of the map there is a photograph of a man; I got the man right and that made the world right, too.”

Let me paraphrase that story just a bit. If all of us, you and I and many others, concern ourselves with and work toward good government and service to our fellow man, then we stand a much better chance of getting the world right, too.

On motion by Mr. Nixon, the debate was adjourned.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House may I take this opportunity to indicate the order of business for tomorrow and for Thursday.

Tomorrow afternoon we will continue with this debate and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) will be making his contribution to it. When the honourable Leader of the Opposition has completed and if there is still some time between then and 6 p.m. we will then go back to Bills 74 and 75 in committee of the whole House. Then tomorrow evening at 8 o’clock we will take into consideration private member’s motion No. 1 standing in the name of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) --

Mr. Nixon: But that matter has been settled.

Mr. Ashe: What a waste of time.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- with a division tomorrow night some time around 10:20 p.m. The House will not sit in the assembly on Wednesday; and on Thursday afternoon we will carry on with the first order, at that time hearing from the leader of the New Democratic Party and, of course, rising at 6 o’clock as we have already provided for in an earlier motion.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch the House adjourned at 4:15 p.m.