Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker: Last Friday in the Legislature the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) stated, and I quote: “With respect, I think it is slightly incorrect to say [the doctors] are counselling opting out”; that is, through the Ontario Medical Association. He went on, and I quote: “To my knowledge, they are not engaged in any campaign to promote opting out.”

I wish to bring to the attention of the Legislature a document that I have received, which was sent out unsolicited to a practitioner in the province, entitled Ontario Medical Association Kit for Members Considering Opting out of OHIP. It is dated May 1978. I would suggest that means that the minister’s statement that the OMA is not engaged in any campaign to promote opting out was not, in fact, accurate.

Mr. Martel: Hear, hear. He should be forced to withdraw it.

Mr. Foulds: That’s putting it mildly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

Hon. Mr. Parrott: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I apologize that I do not have a copy of this statement for the critics. Oh, you have just received it this minute? I think it is on the way over. I’m sorry. We have been redrafting it very recently, and I think that likely is the statement.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It is in a brown envelope.

Mr. Speaker: That is an integral part of the standing orders, and I think the honourable minister should --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it’s there now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: We’ve got it.

Mr. S. Smith: It came in an Energy envelope, but it says “Environment” on it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We work very closely together; so I think we fulfilled those --

Mr. Martel: We don’t have one yet, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) also has a statement to make; if I may, I will defer to him to make sure copies of my statement are in the hands of the critics before I give it.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment can proceed if he wishes. I think they’re in the hands of the opposition spokesmen.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the members of the steps which the government and Ontario Hydro have taken since last Wednesday to monitor and to assess the implications for Ontario of the accident at the nuclear generating plant in Middletown, Pennsylvania.

Immediate and direct contact was established by Ontario Hydro with officials in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland power pool. Constant and up-to-the-minute technical information was available to us as events took place. The Ministry of Energy was kept fully advised and was given a full briefing by Ontario Hydro last Thursday.

Second, a special co-ordinating committee was set up comprising the Ministries of Energy, the Environment and Labour and Manpower, and Ontario Hydro, to review events and to recommend action.

Third, last Saturday an Ontario assessment team of four qualified scientists was dispatched to Middletown, Pennsylvania, to provide up-to-the-minute information on the procedures being taken to restore conditions at the plant to normal, and to observe the precautionary public-safety measures which have been put into effect by the responsible United States agencies.

The assessment team comprises representatives of the Ministry of Energy, the occupational health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour, and Ontario Hydro. The team will remain at the plant as long as it is required; we think that will be approximately four or five days, based on the information we have now.

I am pleased to add that our team was welcomed by plant and government authorities and that, in addition to providing us with on-the-spot information, the team has been able to assist the US officials in a consultative capacity.

I am pleased to advise the House that representatives from the assessment team report conditions in the plant appear to be stabilizing and that there is greater optimism now than there was even 24 to 36 hours ago. This does not mean that all problems have been resolved. We are told there are a number of difficult problems still remaining which will take time to overcome.

We have been in contact on a day-to-day basis with the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada and, though it, with the other federal departments and agencies concerned with this situation and with appropriate agencies and authorities in the United States.

My colleagues the Ministers of Energy (Mr. Auld) and of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Elgie) will also make statements. The Minister of Energy will report tomorrow on the operation of the thee nuclear generating stations in Ontario and on the safety control measures which are in effect in these plants. The Minister of Labour will comment later today on Ontario’s contingency plan, setting out procedures designed to deal with an incident at one of Ontario’s nuclear stations.

Today, I should like to advise the House on the potential implications for Ontario of the Middletown, Pennsylvania, plant.

First, based upon reports from the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, and on other reports from Canadian and US authorities, I am satisfied that the release of radioactive material to this point has been limited and does not constitute any problem to Ontario residents. On Sunday morning we were advised that radiation levels at ground level on the perimeter of Three Mile Island, where the plant is located, were very low and almost back to normal readings.

I was informed this morning that efforts to reduce the hydrogen bubble within the plant, and to reduce levels of gases within the plant, are proceeding satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, I have here a message, received at 1 p.m. today, from Dr. Aitken of our team; he reports as follows: “As of now, Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports that the hydrogen bubble is greatly reduced in size, and the risk of explosion is correspondingly reduced. Radiation levels outside the plant are approximately at normal values. There is little likelihood of requirement for further evacuation of residents.”

Mr. S. Smith: Do you not think we have radios here?

Hon. W. Newman: We didn’t think you could bear.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I want the Leader of the Opposition to know that we have seen various reports -- as I’m sure he has -- in the newspaper --

Mr. S. Smith: It was on this morning’s news.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- and I think it’s appropriate to put on the record the exact latest reports we have had. I’m sure the House would find us guilty of not doing the right thing if we didn’t do that. This statement today is so the members have what we have at our disposal in the way of information.

Mr. Laughren: It’s all madness.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We have monitored meteorological conditions consistently in an effort to detect any change in the movement of air masses passing over the Harrisburg area. I am thankful that I can report the movement of air masses has been such that no emissions from the plant reached Ontario.

Last night, however, the wind direction changed for the first time in several days with the result that upper air which passed over the Harrisburg area reached parts of southwestern Ontario early this morning. The wind direction is beginning to change again and the forecast is that by midnight air from Pennsylvania will again be moving northeast and will not pass over Ontario.

In any event, emissions at the Middletown plant are now limited and readings of radioactivity are so low that the change in weather last night is not of any concern to us in Ontario.

We will continue to monitor the movement of air and other meteorological factors as we assess the possible impact of any future emissions. We are fortunate that we have in Ontario a network of radiation monitoring stations operating on a regular basis.

My ministry operates an extensive system of high-volume particulate sampling stations throughout the province. Filters from 35 samplers are regularly analysed at the Ministry of Labour’s radioactivity laboratory. This procedure takes several days since these filters are also used to provide information on general air quality readings prior to testing for radioactivity. In the light of Middletown, however, we have been analysing for radioactivity as quickly as tests can be made. We have a total of 160 high-volume samplers throughout the province which provide data on air quality. This emergency procedure has been in effect during the weekend and technical staffs of the two ministries have been at work to keep data as current as possible.

Second, a system of seven stations in Ontario is operated by the radiation protection bureau of the federal Department of Health and Welfare which obtains samples and analyses of particulate matter from stations in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Moosonee, Ottawa, Windsor, Hamilton and Toronto. The department has announced that a report on data on radiation received from this system will be made today.

Third; Ontario Hydro operates two types of radiation monitoring systems, a total of 87 stations organized in two systems. The first system, consisting of 19 stations, monitors each of the three nuclear stations in Ontario at Douglas Point, Pickering and Rolphton. Twelve more of these instruments are situated throughout the province. This system is geared to provide long-term readings. Hydro also maintains a system of airborne radio-iodine monitors which are used on a continuous basis. This system is designed for measuring release of iodine in an emergency situation.

We will maintain contact with authorities in Ottawa and in the US and our team of scientific experts in Middletown is reporting regularly. We are monitoring meteorological information and we are keeping data from the radioactivity monitoring system as current as is possible. We believe that consistent and accurate information is essential to the public interest and we will keep the members of this House and the public fully informed of all future developments.

Finally, I would like to add that the developments at the Three Mile Island nuclear station confirm the importance of viewing preparedness and contingency planning in a continental context. What we need in North America is a better system than we have now to cope with all eventualities. Consequently, with an eye to the future, our government is proposing that a North American nuclear monitoring and advisory centre be established among the appropriate jurisdictions. We envisage the need to design and create the necessary permanent linkages, perhaps including computer and telephone hookups, formal and written procedures, and a process for the accreditation of personnel.

[2:15]

We shall he discussing this proposal with the federal government in order to establish the necessary international planning group.

Mr. Laughren: And the madness will continue.

[Later (2:18):]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the events at Three Mile Island during the past week, many people in Ontario have quite naturally been asking what would happen if a similar accident occurred here? In particular, people want to know whether we have plans to deal with an incident which could endanger the public. I would like to assure the House, and the people of Ontario, that we do have plans, in the unlikely event that such an incident occurred in Ontario.

The first point I would like to make is that plans for a contingency at Pickering were incorporated in the station development plan. When the station become operative in 1971, the Emergency Measures Organization was responsible for a provincial response. The first approved interministerial plan, now in effect, was completed in 1974. This plan has been continuously updated.

In 1975, the cabinet established the “lead ministry” concept which designates the Minister of Labour and Manpower as having prime responsibility. This means that my ministry has the responsibility for co-ordinating the government’s response, in the event of a nuclear accident with off-site implications.

Having said that, I would like to point this out: As in most accident situations, immediate and urgent responses, to be most effective, must be initiated by someone on the spot. The shift supervisor at a nuclear generating station would be the first to bow of a dangerous situation. Although he would notify government officials immediately, he would have to make some rapid decisions on his own, decisions required for the protection of nearby residents. It is an essential part of the plan that these initiatives be taken by the shift supervisor and carried out with the co-operation of local authorities.

Once the government assumes control of the situation, Hydro relinquishes its jurisdiction for off-site safety to this interministerial control group. In addition to members of my ministry, the group includes representatives of Hydro, the Ministries of Health, the Environment, and Agriculture and Food, the Ontario Provincial Police, local authorities and senior physicists at the University of Toronto.

Arrangements have been made to keep the public informed of what has happened through releases to the media, at first by Hydro and later by the control group. I and other cabinet members would be briefed on the situation by this stage of activity. Meanwhile, residents living near the station would he advised on a continuous basis of what actions were required for their protection.

Should such an incident escalate, decisions would be made and announced concerning the safety of things like drinking water, milk and other food supplies. I should mention that all activities relating to the safety of personnel inside the station would continue to be the responsibility of both Hydro and the Atomic Energy Control Board. In the event of injury to station personnel, the local authority would be responsible for any medical treatment that may be required. Should evacuation be required, this would be under the control of local authorities who are represented on the control group.

I have many details but these are the essential features. To date there have been three full-scale exercises, the last in October 1918. In addition, there have been a number of smaller exercises to test its effectiveness. All of these are in addition to Ontario Hydro exercises which are conducted on a regular basis. As an aside, I might say the outside referees of the most recent mock full-scale exercise commended the whole group for the efficiency and the adequacy of the operation.

We are well aware that there can always be unpredictable aspects to an accident situation. In fact, it is in the nature of accidents that they are unpredictable, but we believe our approach is one that would allow us to deal effectively with off-site nuclear emergencies.

[Reverting (2:15):]

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to table the Ministry of Transportation and Communications’ and the Ministry of Northern Affairs’ road construction program for 1979-80.

During this fiscal year my ministry plans I to spend an estimated $275,600,000 for construction on the King’s Highway system in southern and northern Ontario, an increase of approximately $50,000,000 over last year’s expenditure. In addition, we will be subsidizing municipal road construction to the tune of a further $200,000,000. This generates about $340,000,000 in total expenditures, when you include the municipalities’ share.

Considering these factors, then, approximately $615 million will be spent on construction of roads, highways and streets in Ontario throughout the fiscal year.

Mr. Laughren: Jim Snow for Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As the members how, this government has been reassessing its overall budget requirements and priorities over the last couple of years --

Mr. Cassidy: What have you got that Dennis Timbrell doesn’t have?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- because it is intent on priming the job market and, therefore, the economy. Recognizing the importance of highway transportation in the economic development of Ontario, I feel road tax dollars invested in highway construction not only create jobs but generate business for related industries and local businesses.

Therefore, keeping this in mind, the projects included in this year’s program are those we judge most essential to preserving the present high quality of our highway system, while providing the necessary expansion.

Briefly, then, in southern Ontario we’re proposing new work on a total of 791 kilometres of provincial highway system, primarily on two-lane highways. In northern Ontario my ministry will continue to carry out the planning, design and construction of some 776 kilometres of the provincial highway system during 1979-80. This latter system, as I’m sure all members how, is the partial responsibility of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. It allocates the funds for capital road construction.

Again, the majority of the work is primarily on two-lane highways, although the construction of passing lanes, remote and municipal airports, are also included in this year’s program.

Mr. Martel: It’s just another layer of bureaucracy.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Details of all these projects, and others, are contained in the program I am tabling today, copies of which will go to each member’s mailbox this afternoon.

[Later (3:18):]

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or a point of clarification, I believe I inadvertently misled the members of the House when I made that brief statement on the tabling of my ministry’s book, when I stated that the provincial roads program was increased by $50,000,000. That should have been $15,000,000.

Mr. Nixon: We thought we were back to the old days.

Mr. Swart: Do you know what is going on in your ministry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is the total ministry budget that has been increased by approximately $50,000,000.

Mr. Warner: You can get a calculator for $29.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I twigged that that figure was wrong, but only when I saw it in front of me.

[Reverting (2:24):]

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the House leader (Mr. Welch), perhaps I could direct a question to the Minister of Energy, to whom I have served notice regarding the question.

Will the minister support the notion we have been putting forward that the select committee on Hydro affairs begin immediately an investigation of the safety of nuclear generating stations in Ontario? Further, if he does agree, would he be prepared to accede to the recommendation that Dr. Arthur Porter be seconded from the royal commission to the select committee as a consultant for the purposes of this investigation?

Hon. Mr. Auld: As the Leader of the Opposition says, he sent me a copy of the statement. I appreciate that and thank him for it. The select committee, with the consent of the House, can pursue any course it wishes. I would have no objection; in fact, I think it would be a good thing for the select committee to take a look at the regulations under which Hydro operates. On the other hand, I think it is important to remember that the controlling body for safety in nuclear matters is the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. It would seem to me that might be the agency that should also be taking a look at the record.

I might take this opportunity to expand on what the Minister of the Environment said just a moment ago. I intend tomorrow to make a statement that will indicate both the regulations under which Hydro operates and the comparison, where it is comparable, between our kind of operation and the operation in Pennsylvania that is causing all the concern. The reason I don’t have it today is that it is taking a little time to put together because it took a little while to find out exactly what has happened there.

I will certainly pursue this. I might say it is the Atomic Energy Control Board that we have to satisfy, but in connection with Dr. Porter I read some press accounts of an interview he had yesterday. I thought the House might be interested in them. Apparently, Dr. Porter was interviewed on CKFM today at 12:10. I have some highlights of what he said, which were handed to me, but I didn’t hear him.

Mr. Mattel: He said it was more dangerous.

Hon. Mr. Auld: He said that taking the human factor into consideration, it was conceivable accidents could happen in Ontario’s reactors. He also indicated the probability of serious problems in our reactors was very, very small. He said the instrumentation in our reactors is such that several fail-safe systems would have to go wrong at the same time before problems could develop, and if humans make an obvious error, the instrumentation will not accept it.

Finally, in response to the question, “Do they, Hydro personnel, know what they are doing?” Dr. Porter said, and I believe this is a quote: “They are the most impressive bunch of people I’ve ever met. Sheer dedication is the operative word.” Then, in connection with Hydro’s operational record: “The best on earth is evidence that these people really know what they are doing.”

Mr. Mattel: He also said it was more likely to happen.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, and accepting the fact that there could well be a federal forum for this as well, would the minister encourage his cabinet colleagues to put forward the necessary motion before the Legislature at the earliest possible moment so that if there is assent required from the House it might be granted? Would the minister agree that, surely, it’s the public that needs to be satisfied at this point with regard to the safety provisions and that the select committee seems to be an efficacious and immediate way that this can be dealt with, and by bringing Dr. Porter into the committee it diminishes the possibilities of duplication or, for that matter, excessive partisanship?

Mr. Bolan: Self-serving evidence.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, not being the leader of the government, I’m not in a position to commit the government, but I will certainly convey that message to the Premier if he’s not here before the end of question period. I would agree that there is a wide misconception of the basic differences between the Candu system, which is the one used in this province -- and, as my honourable friend pointed out last Friday and has pointed out before, a very great difference in the records of the two systems -- and the enriched uranium system in use in the United States and elsewhere in the world. It is increasingly difficult, particularly at times when there is an incident elsewhere, to get this across to people and anything we can do to achieve that end is important as far as the people of the province are concerned.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, since the select committee was planning to examine the nuclear option including the safety factors in it this summer -- and what has happened at Three Mile Island simply suggests it would be advisable we do it sooner in order to provide a public forum to allay concerns and, indeed, to satisfy the impact of this whole thing on the nuclear industry, no matter whether one is a pro or a con in the nuclear industry at the moment -- would the minister through his leader give immediate consideration to authorizing from the House that the select committee proceed with this in whatever is deemed to be the most appropriate relationship with the royal commission and Dr. Porter?

If I may just add here, Dr. Porter is busy doing his report and he has a mass of evidence that he has got from all of the experts. I can tell the House that the staff of the select committee has read that evidence and I would think Dr. Porter and his experts coming before the committee as witnesses could elaborate on that. Whether one calls it consultant or witness, I think is neither here nor there for the moment. In whatever is deemed, after serious consideration, to be the most appropriate relationship with the royal commission in view of the fact that they have all that evidence there now, what we want to do is just to bring it out, take a look at it and come to a conclusion.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will convey that to the Premier.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Do I understand the minister correctly when he said he thought AECB would be the appropriate people to take a look at nuclear safety in the. Candu system? That they would be the people? Does the minister not realize, as my leader has stated, that it is the public who have to be satisfied and that the kind of information we get from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited does not agree in every way with information that we get from other sources?

[2:30]

I’ll just give you one example, if I may have the latitude, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Porter is reported on the radio this morning as saying that while the probability of a meltdown in the Candu system is not very great, it is 100 times greater than those figures touted by Atomic Energy of Canada. Would the minister not agree that a public forum is the place where all of the facts have to be revealed and that Dr. Porter would provide that element of neutrality in that kind of group that would build the trust of the public in the decision that was made?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Repeating myself, as I said a moment ago, I agree that it is important that we get across to people the system we have in this country. I simply am pointing out that it is the Atomic Energy Control Board that sets the rules and issues the licence to the plant, as the honourable member knows. It seems to me any public perusal of the rules should involve the Atomic Energy Control Board. We want to make sure we remember the difference. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is the crown corporation that has developed the Candu system and licences it. The Atomic Energy Control Board is a different regulatory agency.

Mr. Renwick: By way of supplementary question, is venting into the atmosphere part of the emergency procedure that would occur at Pickering in the event of a mechanical breakdown in the cooling system?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No. I think I mentioned on Friday very briefly that in the Pickering and Bruce plants there is a separate chamber under a constant vacuum which is connected to the reactor chamber. Any leakage that goes on in the reactor chamber is automatically taken to this other chamber where it can be filtered so that in the event there were a continuous emission, there would be no radioactive iodine and stuff like that put into the outer atmosphere, as apparently may have happened at Three Mile Island.

[Later (2:43):]

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Ministry of Energy which reflects the very substantial concern now about safety standards in Ontario Hydro plants, public concern that I believe should not wait to be satisfied until after the reports of the Atomic Energy Control Board or, for that matter, of the various commissions and committees that are working at the provincial level.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that last fall --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that last fall Ontario Hydro was a member of the interorganizational working group that recommended the Atomic Energy Control Board relax its standards on emergency core cooling systems and relax its standards in terms of the allowable radiation hazard in case of a nuclear power plant accident, will the minister direct Hydro to oppose any such relaxation of standards as it was proposing in the fall until the consequences of the Middletown disaster are fully explored and we know whether or not any relaxation of that nature is in fact justified?

Hon. Mr. Add: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that matter. I am not aware of the technical aspects of what the honourable member is referring to. Without knowing that I am not in a position to comment at the moment.

But obviously, in the whole field of safety as far as I am concerned we don’t propose to relax anything that is necessary.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: If the minister says the government doesn’t intend to relax any standards that are necessary, and since the interim report of the Porter commission stated Hydro’s estimate of a likelihood of a catastrophic accident could be generous to Hydro by a factor of as much as 100, will the minister make it absolutely clear there will be no relaxation of standards and that Hydro will not advocate any relaxation of standards until we have had a thorough review, both in public and also within the ministry, about whether such relaxation of standards can be justified? There is very real concern, Mr. Speaker, across the country --

Mr. Speaker: That is clearly a repetition of the original question.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and will the minister assure us that Hydro will take no further action on relaxing standards until these matters have been fully explored?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable member knows full well that Hydro can’t change the rules that the Atomic Energy Control Board sets.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will Hydro withdraw its support for the report of the interorganizational working group of the AECB in which it participated and which suggested very substantial reductions in safety standards -- reductions in safety standards which, in the light of the disaster in Harrisburg, are now very much in question?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I said I would inquire about that and find out exactly what had been said. I will do that and I will report.

[Reverting (2:33):]

MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation concerning the resignation of Philippe Le Blanc. Can the minister confirm there is a Mr. Bob Cook in the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) office who is in charge of co-ordinating the government’s multicultural activities? Can he explain the necessity for such a person and such an office, when within the ministry represented by this minister is a department supposedly co-ordinating all the government multicultural activities?

Is the co-ordination being done by this Mr. Cook of such a nature as to have prompted the resignation of Mr. Le Blanc on grounds which Mr. Le Blanc refers to as “what is happening in the ministry is a totally unacceptable and corrupt practice”? Does he agree that his ministry, which should be dealing with the problems of a multicultural and multiracial society, is using its public funds for partisan purposes, as suggested by Mr. Le Blanc?

Mr. Ruston: Ask the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor).

Mr. Breaugh: Has the minister been discovered?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I don’t know if it is really necessary to confirm to this House that there is such a person as a Mr. Cook working in the Premier’s office. I think that has been public knowledge for a long time.

Mr. Conway: A marionette type of mandarin perhaps?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I can assure members he is not a clandestine kind of figure. He is the chairman of the interministerial committee that was established by cabinet two years ago. That committee was to act to provide a forum for continuing internal review of policies and programs relating to multiculturalism in 10 ministries. So it can hardly be called a clandestine operation.

Mr. Martel: Patronage.

Mr. McClellan: Cash or cheque?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I think everybody on both sides of the House would agree, multiculturalism is something that affects not only one ministry. It is not something that one simply points out to the Ministry of Culture and Recreation as being its job and that nobody else needs to worry about multiculturalism. It is something that, in effect, impacts on 10 different ministries. Mr. Cook in that interministerial committee --

Mr. Makarchuk: It sort of becomes the organizing arm of the Tory party at public expense. That is what it is.

Mr. Warner: It’s a political weapon at public expense; we pay for it.

Mr. Martel: We’d better conduct an investigation into that.

Mr. Makarchuk: If you’re going to do your organizing, pay for it yourself and don’t use public funds.

Mr. Hennessy: Back in your cage.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the reasons that have led to M. Philippe Le Blanc’s resignation are concerned, I find it regrettable that he did not talk to me about it. I have known Mr. Le Blanc for at least eight or 10 years personally; we are not total strangers. If he felt that there were some practices in the ministry that could be regarded as corrupt or political, or something like that, I wish he would have had a talk with me on that subject. He never once on any occasion even hinted that that was his impression. Moreover, he never even mentioned that to his own supervisor. So, quite frankly, I cannot take as too serious the charges that he makes to the press; and that is when I first heard it, when a reporter from the Globe and Mail told me, “Here is what Mr. Le Blanc says in his letter of resignation.”

Hon. Mr. Norton: It was a political resignation -- politically motivated.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As my colleague says, it could have been a political resignation. I do not know. But that is about all I can say at this point --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Have you got the letter yet?

Mr. Martel: Lorne, you wouldn’t get caught.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: You’ve got the letter.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I think I will have to terminate the answer to the first part of that question. There is a lot of noise here on both sides of the House.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the chairmanship of the Interministerial Committee on Multiculturalism was assumed by Mr. Cook in March 1977, and since that was not the subject of my question, but rather the fact that as recently as the end of February 1979 the Premier appears to have set up a small section in his “office” under Bob Cook in an effort to co-ordinate the government’s multicultural activities, will the minister now attend to the question which I put to him, which was, what is the necessity for this new initiative on the part of the Premier to have a small section in his office under Mr. Cook handling multicultural activities when there already exists not only the minister’s own ministry, but also an interministerial committee supposedly handling these things?

Does the minister not realize that a man of principle appears to have resigned, with very serious charges about being controlled by mandarins from the Premier’s office -- mandarins that the Premier airily dismissed the other day?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Premier in his wisdom chose to step up the work of multiculturalism some months ago reflects the deep commitment on the part of this government to develop a multicultural society.

Mr. Makarchuk: You’ve got as much commitment to multiculturalism as an alley cat has to morality.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Brantford try to control himself?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I wish to assure members opposite that, as the minister of multiculturalism, or of Culture and Recreation, I will continue to step up in my ministry -- and they will be hearing more about this in the estimates -- the work of multiculturalism in my ministry. We here are committed to developing a multicultural society in Ontario. If some of the members opposite happen to perceive this as political opportunism, I suggest that is in the eyes of the beholder and has nothing to do with our motives, which are simply to develop a multicultural society.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker; I have to say that I read the letter from Mr. Le Blanc with great concern. By way of supplementary:

Will the minister undertake to establish a committee of inquiry that will investigate and report publicly on each of the incidents reported in the letter of resignation by Mr. Le Blanc, and will the minister indicate what steps he intends to take to assure the people of Ontario that multiculturalism will no longer be used by this government as a political tool?

Mr. Rotenberg: It is okay for you to do it. Why don’t you stop doing it, Michael?

Mr. Cassidy: Buying votes.

Mr. Bradley: Must have hit a raw nerve there.

Mr. Warner: You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: After I finally received Mr. Le Blanc’s letter of resignation this morning I spent several hours with my staff on the subject. I inquired about the various charges that had been made in Mr. Le Blanc’s resignation. I talked to his supervisors and his colleagues --

Mr. M. Davidson: You convinced yourself he was right.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and I am convinced that these charges are totally unfounded --

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes, it might be too embarrassing.

Mr. Swart: Yes, it might be embarrassing.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and I haven’t one intention in the world of setting up a commission of inquiry for this kind of charge.

Mr. Cassidy: That is stonewalling.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It is not stonewalling. I only wish that if he had these concerns he would have come to me or would have at least gone to his immediate supervisor --

Mr. Swart: So you could shut him up.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and said, “Look, this thing is becoming corrupt or politicized,” or whatever other charges he was making.

[2:45]

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Treasurer, who I guess is busy preparing the budget for next week.

Mr. Nixon: No, it has gone to press.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s all done, as a matter of fact.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Economic Council was meeting in the Prince Hotel today, and it said that none of the remedies he wants to propose is going to work.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has recently indicated that in the last six years close to 60 per cent of the jobs in the private sector were created by small businesses, and that in manufacturing 55 per cent of the jobs were created by small firms, can the Treasurer tell this House what share, if any, of any proposed incentive schemes will be made available to small and medium-sized businesses to reflect whether job creation has actually been taking place over the course of the last few years?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to address that issue on April 10.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister reassure both this House and small businessmen and the federation of independent business by saying what proportion of any incentive schemes will be given to small business? Or is it the government’s intention to give all these incentive funds to large corporations that in many cases have been destroying jobs, rather than creating them, in this province over the course of the last 10 years?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am a great admirer of small business. I am sure the member will see that reflected in my actions.

TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that may involve three different ministries, and each can take a chance. They will probably have to supplement the information the previous minister gives. The question involves the Minister of Energy, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Is the minister aware that on Sunday, February 25, 1979, an article in the Detroit Free Press was headlined, “Trucks Defy US Atomic Waste Laws”? Is the minister also aware that on June 1, 1978, Tri-State Motor Transit of Joplin, Missouri, transported five wooden boxes of contaminated radioactive material from Consumer Power Company’s Palisades nuclear plant in South Haven, Michigan, through the state of Michigan by way of Interstate 94 to Interstate 96, through Detroit, then across the Ambassador Bridge?

Will the minister contact the Atomic Energy Control Board to ban any further shipments through southern Ontario, as there are already excellent alternative routes through the states of Michigan, Ohio and New York to disposal sites in the east?

Mr. Haggerty: Don’t all jump at once.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I might say to the honourable member that the Atomic Energy Control Board sets the rules and issues the permits. We have nothing to do with it. If they are not aware of it, I will certainly pass this information along, although I would suggest to the honourable member that, inasmuch as I do not read the Detroit Free Press that often, it would be helpful if he sent that material along to the control board.

Mr. B. Newman: By way of a supplementary, the information is already with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Every ministry we ask seems to shove it off on another ministry. The Department of Transport in Ottawa says it is a responsibility of the Ontario Highway Transport Board.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary question?

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the minister can give assurances to the public of Ontario that any shipments that may be allowed to pass through -- and I hope we do not allow any -- will meet Canadian and Ontario criteria, and that both federal and provincial authorities will be informed of the contemplated shipment of these radioactive wastes?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why I am so foolish as to volunteer. But if the member would look at the proposed legislation that was introduced last week, he will find the definition section is broad enough that if any harm should occur from that transportation it would be construed as a spill and therefore would be their responsibility.

That doesn’t answer all of the question, I’m aware of that, but I think it important to know --

Mr. S. Smith: I am so delighted.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s what you call reaction.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Well, I guess they really didn’t want to know anyway.

INCO DISPUTE

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Labour and Manpower: because of the contradictory information being given to the media and the community about who made the last offer in the dispute at Inco, can the minister indicate who made the last proposal and who failed to respond to that proposal? Would the minister and his staff, when they meet with both parties on Wednesday, cost the offer of the company and the counterproposal of the union?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is my understanding that when the parties last met for 11 days in February, the last suggestion for a settlement did come from the union. The company’s response was it was so unrealistic that it didn’t feel it had to respond in any formal way to it.

In answer to the question directly, the last suggestion for a settlement was made by the union, the company not formally responding but indicating they considered it too unrealistic to bother responding.

With regard to the question of costing, I am sure the member knows the role of mediation staff is not to get into the costing of offers and counter-offers. They do first have a very good, albeit moderately rough idea of the cost of each offer from whichever side it comes, but it is my feeling it wouldn’t benefit the forthcoming negotiations that are going to start this Wednesday to have mediators getting involved in costing offers. I would be pleased to talk to the member about it if he has another view, but that’s my feeling at the moment.

Mr. Martel: In view of the company’s attitude towards the Sudbury workers in the community, both now and for the past two years, as evidenced by the layoff and a different proposal for Port Colborne workers as opposed to the Sudbury workers in the form of pensions; and in view of their refusal to put any monetary item on the table, despite the fact that Falconbridge Nickel which lost $8½ million could; and because of their failure to this date to put the COLA clause on the table until September 1980 when they put it on the table in the first round of negotiations with the Thompson workers; doesn’t the minister figure it is time he and his government indicated to Inco their displeasure at Inco’s conduct towards the Sudbury area? Would the government consider withdrawing three benefits bestowed on Inco, which are the 60,000 acres given last year to Inco for exclusive exploration; the reinstating the 720 tons of daily emission standards required by the former control order; and removing the right of Inco to write off its offshore processing costs against profits earned in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member well knows that in spite of the feeling that was generated following meetings with the senior negotiators of both parties two weeks ago -- namely, the feeling that there was no point in resuming negotiations -- I nevertheless took the liberty of having my senior staff go to Sudbury and again discuss matters both with the union in Sudbury and with the company last Wednesday. As the member knows, they still remain very unhopeful, if I may put it that way, with regard to the offer of settlement.

However, I felt so strongly about it, as it has been almost two months now since the parties have been to the bargaining table, that I have suggested they return to the table on Wednesday. I think it wouldn’t do those negotiations any good for me or anyone to get involved in the criticism of either party and I am therefore going to decline answering at this moment.

With regard to the question of benefits, the member knows he can ask the Ministers of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) and of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) about each of those items if he is serious about them.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a supplementary. In view of the fact that the strike in Sudbury has been going on since last September, and the one in Fort Frances and Kenora since last July, an obviously long, involved and bitter strike, is there anyone in the ministry working on new approaches to collective bargaining in this province so that the communities that are so adversely affected by such lengthy and prolonged strikes will not be as badly affected and we can come to a new pattern of bargaining in this province so that these problems can be avoided?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As the member knows, it was about a year ago -- maybe a little more -- that the ministry introduced its program of preventive mediation in the hope that this very sort of thing in companies and in unions that have had difficulties in the past could he avoided in the future, and we continue to do that.

Similarly, we’ve now instituted a program, even without preventive mediation, where there have been difficulties in previous negotiations. Those particular negotiations receive extra attention.

With regard to the Boise Cascade problem in Kenora and Thunder Bay --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Fort Frances.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- the member knows full well -- as I explained in the House three weeks ago -- my view and the view of the two members of the disputes advisory committee is that the only way that matter can be resolved, in our opinion, is through voluntary binding arbitration, a view that neither party to date has chosen to accept.

Through the more frequent use of disputes advisory committees, through preventive mediation and through particular attention to issues which have caused problems in the past, we think we’re being fairly innovative in trying to approach such difficult situations as the member referred to.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the company has termed the union request “unrealistic” -- I think that was the term the minister used -- I wonder if the minister would take into consideration the fact that Inco is funnelling money to the tune of $50,000,000 a year to its Ray-O-Vac subsidiary in the US to modernize its plants there? Does the minister think that’s good corporate behaviour for a company that’s destroying the heart of a community in Sudbury right now and for the last seven months?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, so that the member really understands and appreciates, I have the same concern about that particular community that he does, and he knows the effort and the honest, sincere effort --

Mr. Laughren: No, I don’t. You haven’t told the company to make the offer either. You are playing silly little games.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- that I have always put into that particular dispute and that particular community.

Mr. Laughren: You never will tell them to make the offer either. What kind of nonsense is that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let’s not try to suggest there’s any difference in the way we see the problem up there. I think it would be inappropriate for anybody to get into the position of criticizing any party at this time when they’re about to get into negotiations on Wednesday.

PCB REPORT

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Since the ministry staff indicated that the report called PCB Formation in Sewage Chlorination would be released within six to eight weeks from March 1978, has the report been completed, why has it taken so long and when will it be released?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can tell the honourable member that it has been completed. It’s extremely difficult for me to tell him why it has taken so long, and I guess I’d better not try. Having been given a little notice of that question, let me assure the member that I share his concern and I have instructed staff that we should have that report in his hands in four to six weeks. That’s a fairly firm commitment. I know it’s a little longer than he wished, but I can tell him the report is completed. It’s undergoing what they call editorial corrections.

Mr. Riddell: That’s a little better than “in the fullness of time.”

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think he’ll have it in his hands before long.

Mr. Gaunt: Will the minister table the report in the House when it is completed, in view of the study’s far-reaching implications?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, and I will be sure to send the member the first copy.

CBC CONNECTIONS PROGRAM

Mr. di Santo: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. In view of the fact that the recent sensational series, Connections, on CBC projected a bad image of the Italian community as a whole, as minister responsible for multiculturalism what does he intend to do in order to rectify the image that many Canadians have of the Italian Canadians, to repair the damage done, and to protect the reputation of thousands of innocent people and law-abiding citizens who have been innocently slandered by the CBC?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, although I did not see the TV production, I have heard about it and I have had a synopsis done for me. I could say that I share the view of the member opposite that it did a dreadful disservice to the Italian community in this province and in this country. I, as Minister of Culture and Recreation for the province, am shocked by it. I will be in touch with the Italian community, probably later today, to see what steps we can take to correct what I think was a most unfortunate image projected by the CBC -- that great federal organization that is supposed to bring the country together and develop multiculturalism here. Then it comes up with this kind of garbage.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, come on.

Mr. Nixon: Does the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) want to respond to that, too?

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: While the minister is trying to arrange a meeting with the Italian community -- and we would like to know with what sector of the Italian community -- can he tell the House if he doesn’t think it appropriate that Ontario educational TV start devoting some time to the ethnic communities in order to foster racial harmony? Second, doesn’t he think the government of Ontario, through the Premier (Mr. Davis), should ask CRC to devote time to the ethnic communities so that the positive aspects of those communities can be known by all other Canadians?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I think it’s rather interesting that the questions of the possibility of TV Ontario doing something more to further the concept of multiculturalism should be raised, because just this morning, in a meeting with some of the senior officials of TV Ontario, we discussed that very possibility. I cannot, of course, at this time, report any kind of specific or concrete proposals we are planning to undertake. But I certainly see that as one real possibility.

I would be quite happy to discuss this further with the member opposite, or anyone else in this House who has ideas about TV Ontario developing programming designed to further this particular objective.

Mr. Conway: Just keep it out of the Premier’s office.

TOURISM

Mr. Eakins: To the Minister of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker: In view of our existing deficit in tourism, and in view of the success of British Columbia in reducing its deficit, will the minister give consideration to a program similar to British Columbia’s in which low-cost funding will be made available to assist resort operators in upgrading their premises in a structural sense, so that they are able to operate and so that we can encourage more four-season resorts in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, of course. I would point out to the honourable member that essentially this is something this government has been doing for a great number of years through the development corporations, particularly in northern and eastern Ontario. They get preferential rates.

Mr. Eakins: They’re very difficult to get.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member has indicated the money is very difficult to get. I might say that throughout our estimates I did not hear any of those complaints, either from the member opposite or from anyone else. I think the experience by and large has been this: Where there has been some unusual delay in the Ontario Development Corporation programs supporting the tourist industry, a few telephone calls have got to the heart of the problems. The experience has been very good.

I might also take this opportunity to remind the member opposite that in our early statements with regard to some of the target groups for the new employment development fund, the tourist industry had already been preselected as one of those industries to get some special attention from that fund.

Mr. Eakins: We treat you royally.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You bet.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If the government is doing all these great things for the tourist business, particularly in northern Ontario, when does it intend to stop foreign tourists from camping freely on crown land, often beside tourist facilities been built and invested in by people? This government through its crown land free camping policy is in direct competition with this kind of investment.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure the member the whole question of camp grounds is one I have been speaking with my colleague about at some length --

Mrs. Campbell: Who’s winning?

An hon. member: Can’t win them all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and perhaps at a later time, he and I might have more to say about that matter.

Mrs. Campbell: Together?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course.

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the Minister of Labour and Manpower explain the lengthy delay in implementing Bill 70, the safety and health legislation? What is holding up the regulations? When can we expect to receive the regulations?

Mrs. Campbell: Too busy.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would like to think there has not been a delay. We have been working very hard on getting the regulations together, which is not an easy task, as I am sure the member knows. I can assure him I am personally making every effort to see the bill is proclaimed within the next month or two.

Mr. Mackenzie: A supplementary: Can the minister tell us if he has allowed for any real input into the regulations from the workers and their unions who will be working with this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am afraid I can’t answer that specifically. In a general way, however, it is my understanding there is input, but if the member has reason to think that is not so, I would be glad to look into it.

WELCOME HOUSE

Mr. O’Neil: I have another question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

Going back to the Le Blanc resignation, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he does have present plans to move the Ontario Welcome House to another location and if so, when is that planned and at what direction is that move being made?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do have plans to move Welcome House from the Harbourfront site to a more central site on University Avenue. This move is simply a further step which reflects our increased work in the multiculturalism field. We hope when this move is completed there will be some 25 or 26 different ethnic groups and languages being spoken there.

Mr. S. Smith: They all speak Tory.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We hope all the various communities in the Metro area particularly will take advantage of it. I would like to emphasize that we hope every member of every party in this Legislature will also take full advantage of that facility as a way of building bridges and developing communications with all the many cultural communities here in Toronto and in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Between the Premier’s office and multiculturalism.

Mr. Nixon: The mandarins are striking again, lurking in the corridors.

Mr. O’Neil: The minister didn’t completely answer my question; that was at whose direction? I would like to know.

Is it going to cost approximately $1,000,000 to move? Does that move come because of the letter the Premier sent to the minister on February 27 in which it was suggested it would be an excellent idea to relocate the complete multicultural package in a highly visible area with its own building? He concludes in the last part of that letter: “We might soon regain the recognition lost in the past few years because of the wide proliferation of our multicultural efforts.”

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The decision to move Welcome House to its future location was the result of recommendations made by a number of people.

Mr. Breithaupt: What about the old Hydro building?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It did not originate only from the Premier’s letter of February 27.

Mr. Gaunt: But it has a big influence; those mandarins are at it again.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It is a move which I think makes a great deal of sense. It will certainly provide far greater and ready access to the many people from the various cultural communities living in the city.

Frankly, here again, instead of criticizing this move, I had hoped the members opposite would have applauded that because surely they are as much interested in the development of multiculturalism in this province as we are.

Mr. S. Smith: It is the motive for the money we are against.

Mr. Turner: Don’t you talk about motives.

An hon. member: Why not?

ACTIVITIES OF WCB ETHNIC CO-ORDINATOR

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising out of the letter of resignation of Mr. Philippe Le Blanc.

Will the Minister of Labour and Manpower explain to me why the ethnic co-ordinator for the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Mr. Rocco Lofranco, attended a meeting at the First Canadian Portuguese Club on March 9 for the purpose of trying to censor a banquet list which had been prepared by the executive of the First Canadian Portuguese Club in order to ensure that no elected politicians, including MPPs, were invited --

Mr. Ruston: NDPs.

Mr. McClellan: NDP or Liberal I may say -- were invited by the club who were not acceptable to the Portuguese Conservative Party of Ontario?

Mr. S. Smith: He wanted to avoid occupational injury.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I’m sure the member knows that the president of the Portuguese club denies that such a request was made by Mr. Lofranco.

Mr. McClellan: The request was made.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: He still denies that.

Mr. McClellan: It was made.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That’s in the press this morning too. As to why he was there, it’s my understanding that because of his understanding of problems and his relationship with the ethnic community it was thought his views would be of value.

Mr. Makarchuk: More like the relationship with the Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: But if the member feels it was something he’d like me to discuss and review, I’d be pleased to do it.

Mr. Laughren: He is asking you right now.

Mr. McClellan: I have substantiated this morning the presence of Mr. Lofranco and the performance of Mr. Lofranco at that meeting. In the light of this incident and in the light of the incident brought to the minister’s attention last week in the estimates -- that is, Mr. Lofranco’s vicious attack on APIO -- I want the minister to explain to me why Mr. Lofranco should not be immediately dismissed from his job as ethnic co-ordinator at the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In last week’s hoard estimates I indicated to the member that I would review the activities referred to about Mr. Lofranco and report, and I’ll be glad to report on this matter to the member.

FOUR-DEATH CRASH

Mr. Stong: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Now that four people have been killed on Highway 7 just east of Bayview -- three being members of one family -- and in view of the fact his ministry has steadfastly refused the pleas of residents in that area to establish overhead lighting, the lack of which was a contributing factor to that accident, would the minister now consider the construction of adequate lighting to prevent further such carnage in that area?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe the honourable member is referring to an accident that took place about four weeks ago --

Mr. Stong: March 10.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- a very serious and unfortunate accident. Yes, there have been discussions between the municipality and the ministry with regard to improvements at that intersection. My staff in the normal process had planned on construction work, I believe in the years 1980 or 1981, to reconstruct the intersection with turning lanes, et cetera. That would involve lighting and different signal arrangements at that time.

I have asked my staff to review this. I must say that in that particular accident I don’t believe lighting or turning lanes or anything else would have prevented those unfortunate fatalities. As I recall the report that I had with me for a few days following that, expecting such a question, the one automobile went right across the median into the other lane. Nothing, other than a concrete median barrier perhaps, would have prevented that accident.

But, yes, I have instructed the staff to see if we cannot in some way make some of the required improvements in 1979 rather than leaving it until 1980.

Mr. Stong: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well really, there has been a commitment made.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the minister ought to be aware that the accident happened one half a mile east of the intersection on a curve. I wonder what steps the minister has taken, or what steps he will endeavour to take, to protect the rights of the eight-year-old orphaned survivor to claim against the ministry without the intervention of a limitation period?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would not wish to make any comment. I would refer that question to the Attorney General who, I am sure, would be more familiar with what the legal rights of that unfortunate child might be.

Mrs. Campbell: He wouldn’t want to make a comment either.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. We are all well aware from newspaper reports that the deadly chemical dioxin has been discovered in Bloody Run Creek which leads into the Niagara River in New York state and that the pollution appears to emanate from another old chemical dump of the Hooker Chemical Corporation similar to the Love Canal dump.

In view of the fact that toxic chemicals do not recognize international boundaries, has the minister personally contacted the governor of New York state to urge that the highest possible priority be given to containment and cleanup of this very serious pollution which may affect both the Niagara River and Lake Ontario ultimately and could endanger the health of Ontario residents?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I have not personally contacted the governor, but I am sure that there’s no doubt in the minds of officials of his department that we are very concerned, and we have had a good deal of contact with those officials. I think that might be the appropriate thing at this time. There’s not much doubt from following the situation that the governor is quite concerned and is well aware of our concern.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: Has the minister been in touch with the federal minister of the environment, urging him to contact the New York authorities and the Canadian government to make representations regarding this very serious matter?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it would be more than fair to say that the Honourable Len Marchand and myself have had several conversations, not specific to that creek but certainly on the aspect of international problems and his role in it. Along with the minister from the federal government, we had a meeting with the Minister of the Environment for Quebec and discussed at some length those aspects of our international concerns.

TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is the minister aware of these comments made by his colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), while attending a meeting with the Niagara region council? Quoting from the Niagara Falls Review of March 23, 1979, “Mr. Wells appeared appalled that Fort Erie doesn’t have a permanent tourist information centre and promised to bring it to the attention of the appropriate minister”?

While visiting Fort Erie, the minister’s predecessor made similar comments a year ago and showed displeasure with the present government policy of doing too little to improve Ontario’s tourist needs, in direct contrast to the theme “We treat you royally.”

After years of debate in the Ontario Legislature and outside, can the minister indicate to the Legislature when he will announce the tender call, in conjunction with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson), for the construction of a tourist information centre at the entrance to the Peace Bridge, Canada’s largest port of entry at Fort Erie, Ontario?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Here is your chance to say you are already doing it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am already doing it. I quite seriously hope to be able to make that announcement within the next two or three months. I will probably be down there with Gordon Dean to make that announcement at that time.

Mr. Haggerty: Is the minister aware that funds are now available in the Ministry of Government Services estimates?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quite seriously, I am satisfied that between my budget and the budget in MGS we will be able to find funding to get something substantial up in that area this current year.

CABLE TV SERVICE IN OHC PROJECTS

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Will he confirm that he is ending all bulk-purchase agreements for cable TV service for residents of Ontario Housing Corporation units, including the senior citizens? Would he not agree that will raise the cost of cable TV to senior citizens and those others by at least 60 per cent and in some cases as high as 200 per cent? And would he not admit that there is no alternative for the residents but to either pay that huge increase or revert to the rabbit ears because OHC will not construct any new receiving towers? Therefore, will he reconsider that policy and renegotiate the bulk-purchase agreement?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we have been for some time looking at the bulk-purchase agreements in Toronto and, indeed, in the rest of the province. When the OHC first got involved in bulk-purchase agreements there was a very substantial discount for bulk purchase, which meant 100 per cent of the residents must subscribe to the system whether they wished to or not. As a result of the passage of some years, that bulk rate has climbed consistently to the point that it is now very close to the actual fee that would be charged to an individual who wished to hook into the system.

We have looked at it very carefully from OHC’s point of view and we have discussed it with the cable television people. We have looked at the benefits that can accrue to the tenants of OHC, whether they be families or seniors. We have also looked at the fact that there are write-off charges every year that the government, the people of this province, pick up for unpaid bills for cable television to those tenants.

It is the consensus of the board of directors of OHC, concurred in by the minister and by ministry people, that we would go on the individual subscriber position throughout the OHC portfolio. We have discussed it very completely with the various groups, and may I say that there has been some resentment by OHC tenants that they were forced to accept cable television in their building whether they wished to have it or not, or whether they had a television or not and that they had to pay a monthly charge for that particular service because in the bulk agreement we had with the cable people it was 100 per cent or nothing. We have now decided, because of cost factors and because of resentment by some tenants, that we would go on the individual subscriber rates.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

[Applause]

Mr. McClellan: Give ‘em hell, Jim.

Mr. Martel: Come on, tiger.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you. I must say --

Mr. Gaunt: This is your chance, Jim; this is your chance.

Mr. McClellan: Have no mercy.

Mr. Conway: The man who put Bill Davis in his place.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- in standing up, you would almost think that I had announced that I wasn’t going to run again. I must say I was overwhelmed with the applause.

Mr. Conway: You have to get a federal nomination first.

Mr. Philip: After your free time broadcast on the weekend, you had better not run again.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I didn’t hear that, but I would be happy to respond to any repartee or interjections from across the floor as I have in the past.

Mr. Conway: What nomination are you looking at now, Jim?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Have you any suggestions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. After the ovation I think everybody would be anxious to hear what he had to say.

Mr. Breaugh: There shouldn’t be any interjections from the chair.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I did want to make some comments, off the cuff of course and maybe somewhat far ranging, in regard to a number of matters that are of interest I think not only to this House but to the members of the community.

I have had some interest as you know, Mr. Speaker, in community affairs.

Mr. Bolan: What happened to our friend up there?

Mr. Grande: Jim, your friends are all leaving.

Mr. Breaugh: Did you ever empty that front bench when you stood up, Jim.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I didn’t hear that but I would be happy to respond.

Mr. Turner: No, don’t, it wasn’t worth it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It wasn’t worth responding to? Then I won’t respond.

I was saying that I have had some considerable interest in community affairs. As you know, some years back I had occasion to serve in the capacity of Minister of Community and Social Services. It was a very challenging period in my life, I must say.

Mr. Makarchuk: No question about it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I suppose I am still somewhat scarred from those days.

Mr. Conway: I gather.

Mr. Makarchuk: There are a few CASs that feel the same way.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: But it really hasn’t scarred my mind, I want you to know --

Mr. Grande: I don’t think you will ever heal.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- nor affected my --

Mr. Makarchuk: Your psyche.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- my psyche or my personality, no.

Mr. Makarchuk: I didn’t think anything could affect that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In other words, I don’t have to visit the Liberal leader in a professional capacity.

Mr. Makarchuk: I wouldn’t visit him in a professional capacity, either.

Mr. Conway: Do you prefer the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson)?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I do want to say this, though. I was born in what I consider to be a rather normal community.

Mr. Conway: Oh, pray tell, where was that?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It was Timmins. I see the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development sitting here --

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Good spot.

Mr. Conway: Oh, I don’t believe it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and applauding because he is aware of the north and the problems of the north. Maybe in some of the earlier days we weren’t quite as sophisticated as the southerners, and Timmins, as the minister for resources development knows, was somewhat back in the hinterland, certainly in the early part of this century. That really puts some perspective on things, doesn’t it? You felt that you lived so far back in the hush that you had to come out of the bush to hunt. But it taught me a few things and one was the concept of a normal community.

In those days we had a community that was made up of all kinds of people. I am not only talking about ethnic background now and we heard something of ethnic background in the question period today. We had people whose heritage or ancestry might have been from any part of the world, and we accepted this. We had people who were of different colours. I am not talking about political colour now, I am talking about the colour of their skin. In addition to the colour of one’s skin and the difference in one’s language was the difference in mentality. We had people who were very intelligent and some who were not so swift.

Mr. Conway: That seems obvious.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We had some who were mentally handicapped. I see the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk entering the chamber and I don’t think that was circumstantial.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t bracket me in that statement. I may be overweight. Tell us about the bald ones.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I east no aspersions on the immense intellectual capacity of that member.

Mr. Nixon: I knew you when you first started in politics. You were ripping off the select committees.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I just want to say that we had that kind of person in that community

-- a very intelligent person -- and we had, as I mentioned, some who weren’t so intelligent. And we had some people who were physically handicapped. We had young people, and we had old people; and we seemed to take all of this in our stride. The citizens of that community were interested in what was going on.

[3:30]

We kept our old people in our homes; many of us did that. If someone was disabled, we helped the disabled, whether that was physically or mentally. It was interesting to accept what I thought of as normal in those days, which turned out to be something in subsequent experience in large metropolitan areas and, I suppose, with the passage of time. There was an evolution. There seemed to be an urge on the part of larger communities to start taking what I considered was a normal community and to dissect that community and institutionalize so much of it.

If you were young, exceptionally young, you had day-care centres, and then you had nurseries and kindergartens. You had other facilities for persons who were handicapped in one way or the other, either physically or mentally. You had institutions for the elderly. We seemed to take society and dissect it and institutionalize what was a normal society. This, I may say, somewhat troubled me; because I discovered when I was Minister of Community and Social Services that we had literally thousands of agencies that were tending to the needs of these various elements in our society.

I wish the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) wouldn’t exist, because he was the critic at that time.

Mr. Breaugh: He still is the critic. Are you still the minister, Jim? He has outlasted you.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I appreciate his political motivation in frying to upgrade the image of his party, and to display a sensitivity for people that is somewhat lacking in larger communities. I applaud the member for that; and if the member for Oshawa wouldn’t interject, I think he would accept on behalf of his colleague that type of compliment.

Mr. Breaugh: I’m just trying to help you. Someone should.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Here we had an evolution. We had concerned citizens who would, on an initial basis, volunteer their help. They would perform the actual duties in caring for one. They would enlist the support of their fellow members of the community and be responsible for the carrying out of that particular program. If it was to assist the youth, again I could show you the evolution of the children’s aid societies, and there are some 50 in Ontario; societies that were created because of a genuine concern on the part of citizens for the youth of this province of ours; societies which were operated by very sensitive people who raised their own funds and cared for the children who were either unwanted or neglected.

What happened then was what we have seen happen so much of late; and that is, the organizations take on a professionalism. The professional takes over and the volunteer becomes a fund raiser, often relegated to the role of selling tickets.

That type of attitude where you extracted the milk of human kindness and the genuine sincerity and concern on the part of citizens for their neighbours, troubled me greatly and continues to trouble me. We have, as I have said in the past, taken charity and made it a crown corporation. We have turned the Good Samaritan into a civil servant and we look to the government more and more for funds to keep these agencies going. They are all well-intentioned people and they are agencies that all do good, there’s no question about that. Yet in my estimation it is important not only for the developmental services for the mentally retarded but for all services to be deinstitutionalized as much as possible, to normalize the setting of people who are not as gifted as others, who suffer some type of handicap.

It was in that regard that I had hoped to take our Developmental Services Act and to ensure that other handicapped persons not covered by any special or specific legislation be included in a new Developmental Services Act so that there could be some equity in terms of funding and approach; some balance,

I noted when I was Minister of Community and Social Services that as the capital funds for all areas except the mentally retarded ceased flowing, there was an inclination on the part of some agencies that looked after persons who suffered both mentally and physically to orient their activities and to accentuate the aspect of mental retardation, so you had that manoeuvring within a system which I didn’t think was right nor did I think it was necessary.

The participation houses, for example, are places where I think the person is looked upon as a whole and where funding was very difficult to come by, and I dare say still is. I looked at the problem in terms of the process of normalization; and as you know these were the buzz words, and I guess they still are -- deinstitutionalization, normalization, use of the generic services of the community. I know in my own riding of Prince Edward-Lennox there was at one time a proposal to build a swimming pool in the institution apart from the community at Prince Edward Heights and the price tag for that was about $1,000,000. We had developed a good rapport within that community, a rapport with the retarded that appreciated the differences between the normal community and those who were afflicted by either a physical and a mental handicap or simply a mental handicap.

It was for that reason that I was anxious to see that swimming pool put within the community -- at great saving, I may say, to the government, because we now had the community interested. We had the board of education interested; we had the town interested; we had different groups that were interested. Unfortunately that didn’t transpire. The government, I suppose, in assessing what became necessary, didn’t think it was in a position to spend a much lesser amount of money to normalize that facility.

That is just one example, because one of the biggest challenges in terms of normalization, Mr. Speaker, as you very well know, is to ensure that you have a receptive community. How can you inject into a community people who are not accepted as normal and then expect normalization? It’s a process of education, of understanding, of preparing a community. I think that’s one of the biggest jobs we face. That’s why I mentioned initially my experience in a smaller community as a young man and the acceptance at that stage in my life of a community made up of people from all walks of life, with all manner of abilities and disabilities. It’s our philosophy to get back into that particular type of community.

As I indicated, the preparation of the normal community now for that full integration is difficult indeed. If you go to Orillia and look at the problems that community has exhibited in terms of the institution there for the mentally retarded, you will find they’re less than receptive. I think they are a lot of well meaning people who have good intentions, but you just can’t accomplish the type of normal setting you would want overnight.

I mention that because I feel we have to normalize our own ministry. I felt that change within that ministry had to be made, and I’m seeing it made now as a matter of fact. I’m seeing the rationalization in terms of child care. I just hope we don’t create another dichotomy in regard to child care when we get involved in the rationalization of services for the elderly so you develop two -- I hesitate to use the word bureaucracies; empires, is that more charitable, Mr. Speaker? --

Mr. Renwick: More accurate.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- within the ministry, so that they never come together --

Mr. Lawlor: How about bureaucratic empires?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and you don’t have an overview of the entire service you’re trying to provide. That can happen in the field as we decentralize and provide those field offices if we’re not careful.

Another area that concerned me was the rationalization of family benefits, general welfare assistance and the federal program. You notice we have at the federal level programs such as unemployment insurance, and the Canada Pension Plan program with provision for disability payments within that. We have, with old age security, a guaranteed income supplement. At the provincial level we have this broad spectrum of family benefits for persons who are not able to work, people who suffer some type of disability, whether it’s permanent disability or whether one is permanently unemployable; I will touch on that in a moment.

In the field again, we have the municipal programs of general welfare assistance, the temporary type of help that is afforded people in true need. I can see where people were lining up, and are, in the municipalities at a municipal welfare office to complete that application process, only to be directed to a provincial office because the person is a likely candidate for a family benefits allowance. I feel very strongly there is considerable duplication and overlap in that area.

I remember attending a number of federal-provincial conferences at which time there was some hope to rationalize these services, except that when I first came on the scene the areas of federal jurisdiction had been carved out of the talks. Instead of looking at the total picture and taking into consideration programs such as unemployment insurance, which covers those persons who are able to work but aren’t working, the manpower training or retraining programs and some of the aspects of the old age pension or supplement as they affect the overall welfare picture, these matters had been extracted from the discussions. It seemed to me that what we were really talking about was funding. It was apparent that the funding was to be block funding so that the costs of the federal government were not going to escalate in perpetuity.

[3:45]

I think there has to be a rationalization of the permanently disabled and the permanently unemployable. I wish the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) was here, because she has been particularly concerned about that for a number of years. I would like to see the family benefits program and the general welfare assistance program administered together. This would probably be best done at the local level.

What I’m really saying, and I won’t dwell on this particular aspect too long because I know there are other speakers, is that we have to put our whole social welfare system together. Maybe I should say together again, because in my view, at one time we did look at the individual as a whole and as a true part of his or her community.

Within these communities we have seen a breakdown in terms of child discipline. This is a very interesting phenomenon in current days, because it goes right through the system, from the home to what’s happening in the churches, the schools and streets. We have had what we call an open society. It seems we’ve taken the laissez-faire out of the economic system and put it into the social system, so that anything goes. I wonder about that; I think we’ve made a mistake.

When one looks at the current debate about drug use and abuse and at the desire on the part of many to decriminalize the use of drugs, which is merely a step toward legalizing the use of those drugs, I wonder whether we’ve lost our senses. I truly feel that if we continue on this path -- and one sees it again in terms of respect for the law, of civil disobedience and of openness -- we’re going to have a nation of dependants.

Then I would wonder what the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) would do with the new candidates for his OHIP scheme when they come through the process of utilizing not only the types of activity that are detrimental to health today, and I could talk about liquor and tobacco, but added to those the legitimization of drugs. In some cases I think we’ll see an evolution from the softer drugs to the harder drugs. That is not the whole problem, but I fear opening up this area and legalizing use is going to cause us great problems indeed.

A lot has been said about OHIP. When I am talking about welfare I like to talk about health, because they are so often interrelated; and they account for about one third of the total provincial budget. if you look at health budgets, running at something like $4,000,000,000 a year; and if you look at the number of OHIP claims processed, they are something in the neighbourhood of 60,000,000 a year, that’s 5,000,000 a month; you wonder again how much of that is overutilization of the system.

I guess I disagree with many of my colleagues when I say we should try a deterrent fee. It has been tried in other places; but I don’t look to other places, I think we could look after those who couldn’t afford that fee, whether it be $2 or whatever. It is not a question of the money that $2 would raise; it is the fact that it might discourage some people who really are just looking for someone to talk to or who have problems of a nature not really requiring medical attention from attending a physician.

I would like to try that. Just looking at you now, Mr. Speaker, relaxed as you are and seeming to suck in every word, I think maybe you would be in agreement with me.

Mr. Ruston: I thought it was going right through.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: No, I don’t think it was.

Mr. Ruston: He is listening, yes.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He is indeed. He always listens and he always understands; and he so often contributes.

Mr. Ruston: Make sure you are in order.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would conjure up all the resources at your disposal, not only as a member of this Legislature but as Deputy Speaker, and assist the Minister of Health in trying to convince people that perhaps we have to take another look at our program.

Maybe we should look at Quebec. We have been looking at Quebec in terms of national unity and other matters; maybe we should look at Quebec in terms of its medical or OHIP-type program as well.

I am truly concerned, if we find the program disintegrating because of the exit of doctors, and I think my friends across the House would agree with me.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, I am buying a one-way bus ticket to Texas.

Mr. Taylor: I don’t think that is a realistic approach.

Mr. Makarchuk: It is.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: But surely you are in or you are out?

Mr. Makarchuk: Also suggest legislation where they can’t sue you to collect the bill and they will all be back in OHIP.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I think maybe we should review that schedule of fees. They are much higher, I know, in Quebec. But either a doctor is a member of that program or he is not. If he is not, there is no way his patient is going to recover anything from that plan. It may not be the answer here but maybe it would bear looking at.

I am also concerned in terms of some minor things we do that come out in the media as major events. I am happy, again, to have my colleague the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) here, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, because he has some first-hand knowledge of these matters, especially in his own riding. I know he is attentive.

Mr. Renwick: He represents the hallmark riding.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I’m glad you recognize it as the hallmark riding, but I was mentioning communications. There may be some deficiency in terms of our communications media, I don’t know, but the way I sensed things out in the field in my community is people are genuinely concerned, if not afraid, of what is happening in terms of the disintegration of our health services in this province. Now that may be right or it may be wrong, but what I’m saying is there is that genuine concern, if not fear, out there.

The imposition of the $9.80 co-payment fee for the chronic care patients is an example. I appreciate what has been done to accommodate the people who can’t afford that. I understand the revisionism that’s gone on in terms of the health program, but you cannot erase the matters that are on the minds of the people. They are concerned that they are going to be harmed in some way; they are going to be rendered penniless, they are going to be victimized or their husbands or their loved ones are going to be victimized by the system.

Maybe that’s communication, and poor communication. Maybe once you do something then it’s hard to undo it. It may be that when we are talking about programs like that we’re really talking about small amounts in terms of the overall budget of the Ministry of Health, which I mentioned was about $400,000,000.

The figures that have been given to me indicate there would be something like $24,000,000 saved through this co-payment, of which 25 per cent would go to the hospitals. I don’t know, I’ve been trying to verify that, but if those are the figures we are talking, $18,000,000, all I can say is it’s an awful lot of aggravation and grief and torment on the part of people in this province.

Another area I think could be pursued is the area of prescriptions. I know we’re not anxious to take away any services given to people now, but I mention prescriptions because I think there’s an obligation on the part of the doctors, the medical profession and the druggists not to unnecessarily prescribe. When they prescribe they should not write prescriptions for patent medicines or aspirin. I’ve heard of this type of thing happening. It may not be a big item, but I think it discredits the system we’re trying to make operate. I think we all want to make it operate. I think we’re all committed to the type of protection we deserve, that the people of this province deserve in the way of health care.

Another matter that troubles me, and one I think is of grave importance to the people of this province, is the area of industry. I’d like to talk about tourism in a few minutes, if I can. It’s the approach of management and labour which concerns me.

I know the New Democratic Party have views about this, very strong views I’m sure. I’m sure they’re sure their views are correct. I haven’t tried to examine those views, but I feel that unfortunately we seem to have taken on a very adversarial position in labour relations. It’s developed more in terms of a contest and we paint the bad actors. It can be the unions, it can be management. We seem to lose sight of the fact that it’s essential that all the people work together.

I take my mind back to days, and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) I’m sure would appreciate the earlier days, when some of the problems in the legal system had to be rectified. I’m sure he’s familiar with the Fatal Accidents Act and the need for reform in those areas.

[4:00]

If you want to go back to the Hammurabi code of law: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” We would wonder about that today. In our legal system we have put a price on an eye, a tooth, a leg and an arm. We don’t take someone’s arm or leg or eye. We try to compensate in terms of money. We feel that’s more civilized, and I think it is. But in the field of labour relations, it strikes me that we haven’t become and we are not civilized.

Surely a system must be developed whereby we can settle disputes, knowing that there are a number of parties involved besides the striking worker and the management, whether it’s the family of the worker, the community or the health of the economy. I feel we have to make a determined effort to resolve this.

I am sure that members across the way have examined it at great length. There were commissions on this type of thing. There was the Rand commission, for example. I am sure they probably wouldn’t subscribe to much of this, but at least it was a start in dealing with the matter by bringing it out in the fresh air and frying to establish some credibility in the process. That report was made a decade ago by a commissioner who, I think, had some credibility in the field of labour relations.

I wanted to mention that today because I think as members representing constituencies that are made up of all kinds of people, who surely must have some common purpose of creating a sense of well-being for others and of enhancing our lifestyle, we must take these things, put them on the table and ask how can we resolve these matters.

I know we can’t go to countries like Japan or some other country to extract from those environments a system that seems to work there which we think might work here. I do believe, however, that it’s time we explored more deeply the labour relations process so that we don’t see the type of polarization that takes place today, the building up of hate on the part of people, a hatred and an uneasiness that permeates an entire community and which is going to be very difficult to discharge. It is going to take a long time to erase those memories from people’s minds, regardless of who wins. We talk in terms of victories when we shouldn’t be talking that way. Regardless of the outcome, we are going to have that feeling of ill will that I think is so terrible in our communities. I won’t mention some of the strikes that are prominent today, but I do feel we have to tackle that area.

When I mentioned industry, I wanted to talk something about tourism because I represent and live in a riding which, as members know, is just a veritable jewel nestled in Lake Ontario. It is just a delightful piece of geography. When God Almighty made that first garden, I sometimes think it was Prince Edward county and that piece of Lennox on the mainland. I invite you all there as tourists.

Mr. Gaunt: Do you suspect that Norris Whitney and his sheep had something to do with it, too?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Well, we have those pastoral settings and a delightful sense of humour that I think no one should miss. I am sure my predecessor, who served my riding so well for 20 years, would be just delighted, if the members were to visit him and his sheep ranch and maybe breathe a little of that good country air; in some of the members’ ridings, one can’t really appreciate what good air is until one breathes ours.

But the same thing doesn’t go for all our waterways. Maybe that is for another day, but I am happy to say they are improving. In improving I think they assist the tourist industry because, again, we were noted, and still are, for our fishing, both on a commercial basis and from the point of view of the angler; good fishing all round.

Of course, in terms of commercial fishing, it is more difficult lately because of the restrictions, restrictions that manifest the fear of PCBs, mercury, mirex, and, maybe, some other things that we haven’t measured yet or haven’t discovered.

But let me say we are graduating students every year in the sciences, with their sophisticated measuring mechanisms, who will be able to determine new dangers to our health. Then, of course, we can implement new regulations and new prohibitions Ito further reduce our tourism and our commercial fishing.

But seriously, in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario we have one of the major commercial fishing industries. It is a delight indeed.

Our tourist industry, I think, needs a shot in the arm. I am happy our Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) has become more aggressive in regard to this area. In a recent speech he indicated that steps would be taken to grade accommodation. So that when a tourist comes into an area he will know the type of accommodation he will be getting. I think that’s good. We haven’t had that in this province.

Mr. Makarchuk: We will be watching the budget.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I am sure it won’t cost anything or we might not have it.

Something that will cost something is the announcement that the sales tax will be rebated to tourists; I think that could be important to our tourist operators.

I am somewhat concerned about the price of our gasoline -- and the fact that gasoline is now being sold in litres instead of gallons. If the Imperial gallon wasn’t confusing enough to the American tourist, I am sure the litre will be. But in any event there is supposed to be an education program, or an indication on the pump explaining just how the litre converts into an American gallon.

Mr. Gaunt: Just multiply by five.

Ms. J. A. Taylor: That might take away some of their apprehension in terms of the acceptance of costs in this country. As the members know, in the past I have been concerned about our service centres -- at least some of those I know. Some have been accused of highway robbery because of ever-escalating prices --

Mr. Makarchuk: Right on.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and I think that’s an area that we as a government have some control over; it’s an area we must get into. It is not just a question of adding a few folders or brochures about tourism. We could develop along these great highways of ours, centres, stops, or maybe even picnic areas.

Sometimes as I drive home during the week, and at the beginning or end of a week, I note those spots where we have these beautiful vistas often overlooking Lake Ontario. It is rolling country, and down in the valley there is a historic site. We have a tremendous history in our area and I am sure the history that is in some of your areas is a history that is not known, let alone exploited. We could have a place where tourists could stop off without feeling they are going to be victimized by some huckster, where he could maybe have a large map and see, through this information centre, some of the points depicted on that map, or some brief indication of the history and the heritage of these areas, and little detours where he could drive.

We don’t have that now. I hope we do this because I think we could put tourism on a much higher profile in this province if we would do some of these things, which again, in my estimation, wouldn’t have to involve a lot of money. The trouble is, as the members know, with government an idea, maybe a small idea, becomes a very big thing. By the rime it goes through the machine, it is a major production. I don’t look for that kind of a production. I am looking for something more modest and meaningful.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism has indicated he is going to ensure the tourist gets a fair exchange on the American dollar as well. I think public relations is a good thing.

Mr. Chairman -- or Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; I see the Speaker has changed in body if not in spirit. I think we have to be very careful when we entertain our visitors in this province that we manifest the good will this province is known for, and that we be most vigilant in regard to imposing more regulations and fees. The announcement of a non-resident fishing licence, for example, of $35 is something I believe is tragic. I don’t think there is any need for that. I think it will do irreparable damage if we start advertising in that way. There may have been, again, a lack of communication on the part of the ministry or the media or the recipient of that information, I don’t know. It is certainly not something that would attract visitors to Ontario.

I hope we don’t get involved in an angler’s fishing licence, either. There has been some suggestion that we have to generate more staff in the Ministry of Natural Resources, provide more fingerlings, more stocking, more management of our lakes, and we then have to attack the angler and extract a fee for that.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, no. You just improve your fisheries regeneration program. You read the reports, Jim. They will tell you the same thing.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Surely to God there should be something in this province of ours we can do without lining up for a licence.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right. Put a little energy into that department.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If I feel on occasion I want to wet a line and then realize I don’t have a licence in my pocket I just wonder what the next step is going to be. I would think we are spending as much on maintaining clean air as we are clean waters.

Mr. Makarchuk: Too damned little.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It may be there will be a licence for that next. In any event, again, don’t blame the angler for the pollution in the waterways.

Mr. Makarchuk: Right on. Blame the government.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t blame the angler.

Mr. Makarchuk: Put the finger right where it is. Blame the government.

Mr. J. Reed: He is going as far as he can go. Give him a chance.

[4: 15]

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If I were to put my finger on anything or anyone in this Legislature, I would put it on the member for Brantford. That’s what I would do. That’s the only way one could exercise equity.

Mr. Makarchuk: You’re totally unfair. You are assigning powers to me that are beyond my capabilities.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I understand be is omnipotent. At least, he indicates that in his committee work.

Mr. Makarchuk: I don’t even smoke.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He is a man of infinite ability; I read some of the stuff he writes. He is a man with tremendous ambition; I can sense that. In any event, as long as he helps us with our clean air and our clean water, and doesn’t assess blame on the angler --

Mr. Makarchuk: What are you getting paid for, Jim? What is the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) getting paid for?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I wouldn’t want to comment on that.

Mr. Makarchuk: Neither would I.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He might question that pay. I can tell the member be is performing more than his pay would represent. There is no doubt about that. I sometimes wonder why one would subject himself to such punishment as to be Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Makarchuk: Well, why doesn’t he start doing his job?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It certainly can’t be for the money.

Mr. Makarchuk: We are trying to provoke him to act, that’s all.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He is doing the best he can. In fairness, the members know it is a very difficult task, regardless of who might hold that portfolio. It could even be a member of the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party. I can tell the House, it is not an easy task. Leave politics aside, as the members may do -- I was going to say as the members may have done in the past although I don’t think so, but hopefully as they may do in the future -- and be fair. They know darned well it’s a tough job and it’s going to be a long process to clean up our environment. I am talking about our total environment.

Mr. Makarchuk: Have you ever considered not messing it up initially?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It took a long time to mess it up; and we are not going to clean it up in a few days or a few years.

Mr. Gaunt: I agree it is a tough job, and it is even tougher for an aging government.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I look at the member and his youthful pose and I just wonder about the credibility of the opposition in that comment. It sort of destroys that remark.

Mr. J. Reed: Are you generalizing?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I am generalizing now.

Mr. J. Reed: I hope so.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I was looking at the youthful appearance and vigour of our Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: He got mugged in the corridors, too, you know, the other day.

Mr. Gaunt: By the mandarins. By the mandarins in the Premier’s office.

Mr. Acting Speaker: There is a little too much banter going on here. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox has the floor.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know whether you are getting me out of a tough spot, or whether --

Mr. Acting Speaker: I’m trying to get myself out of a tough spot.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I wonder about that. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I did promise I wouldn’t speak too long, because there are some to follow me who have a tremendous contribution to make.

Mr. Ashe: Not likely.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I had hoped some time to speak on this whole issue of Ontario’s involvement in terms of constitutional change. I see the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has a resolution, if I am not mistaken, before the House. I think it is important that we as representatives of our people, of our constituents, have some forum and have a voice in what posture our government is going to take. I hope the government then can get a sense of how the people we represent feel about this very major issue, a most important issue. That type of negotiation isn’t performed in the isolation of this House, and I am convinced that it won’t be. I am sure we will have an occasion later to debate that. I look forward to that particular debate.

We have a problem in terms of the economic health of this country and this province. We have things happening in our economy that are illusory in a way, that are deceptive in a way, that seem to lull people into a false sense of security. I don’t think this year is going to be a happy economic year. I don’t think people have begun to suffer as they may suffer, but hopefully won’t have to if government and the people have the will and the determination to do something about it. Again, communication and levelling with the people is so important but I will reserve some comments in regard to that for the budget debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for your attentiveness and almost politeness in keeping not only order in the opposition but the remarks of the members to a minimum. Now, if I may, I would --

Mr. J. Reed: You can have another hour yet.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: No, I don’t want any more time.

Mr. Nixon: You could use a previous speech.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I was anxious to get on to some other things and I keep pulling myself back. I haven’t talked about the milk marketing board, I haven’t talked about our cheese factories, I haven’t talked about our cheddar cheese people, I haven’t talked about our mandarins and the bureaucracy, nor the back alleys. I haven’t talked about Ontario Hydro, nor have I talked about energy and the policy of the federal government. I haven’t talked about the confrontation-type of politics that I am afraid is going to adversely hurt this country in dealing with other provinces and dealing with the federal government in terms of energy.

I haven’t talked about those things -- and I don’t think there’s time today to talk about them, because of the speakers who have indicated an interest to speak this afternoon -- but some time I would like very much to talk about those and to give examples and to give my views in regard to those areas that are so essential in the period in which we live. The absence of energy, if one can contemplate it, is just incomprehensible. We don’t have a civilization without it. The job -- and we have the parliamentary assistant to the minister here -- that this government has to ensure a secure supply of energy for the people of Ontario I think is one of the most important jobs in the country today.

I think the biggest problem we have, of course, is to convince the people of this province that we have a problem and if there was ever a need for communication there is a need for communication there. If there was ever a need for provincial policy and provincial strategy and a national policy -- not a federal policy where provinces are disregarded, but a truly national policy where you have the consensus, where you have the cooperation of the provinces which have the energy and those who don’t have the energy hut may have other things -- it’s right now. We have to do that.

There’s a lot of work to be done in terms of good provincial relations and there’s a lot of work to be done in terms of federal-provincial co-operation, and in my view we don’t get that through confrontation-type politics or confrontation-type dealings. I hope and I am sure that this province certainly will take up that challenge and iron out some of these matters.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to dwell on that matter today because I know there are speakers who are anxious to get on before 6 o’clock.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today for me to respond to some of the things presented in the throne speech on March 6 and perhaps add a few other comments.

Coming from the large rural riding of Grey, I naturally look for items that would be of benefit to agriculture, small business, industry, tourism and senior citizens. I say senior citizens because we have an above-average number of senior citizens in our area compared with other areas of the province and below-average accommodation for them in regard to senior citizens’ apartments and homes for the aged.

A Grey county committee started to work on a home for the aged for the town of Durham in early 1975. They found out that in the province the home for the aged system utilizes 28 beds per thousand residents over 60 years of age. In Grey county there are only 17 beds per thousand and in the Durham area, where this new facility is proposed, only four out of every 1,000 residents use a home for the aged. This points out that people cannot use it if it isn’t there.

But if it has been proved beyond a doubt that the need is there, which it has, then I think we should move to get these places in place.

I have delivered anniversary scrolls to couples in the Durham area who have celebrated their 50th and 60th wedding anniversaries and also their 90th birthdays. They ask me: “When is Durham going to get a home for the aged and more senior citizens’ apartments?” They tell me they are unable to maintain their residences any more and shovel the snow, et cetera, but are forced to remain there because there are no facilities. The villages of Holstein and Chatsworth are other areas that are going through this gruelling process of trying to obtain senior citizens’ apartments.

When these are all well-established government programs that don’t really cost the government much money and ones in which the community participates, and when it has been established that the need is there, why do we have to drag out these procedures for years and waste a lot of time and money before we get on with the job?

With these homes for the aged in place, it will take pressure off hospital beds as well. I will tell members why a little later. The Ministry of Health wants to keep people out of hospital and is trying to do this by closing hospital beds. This seems to me to be a backward way of taking pressure off hospital beds.

My son veals calves at home on the farm. He has several hospital pens for sick calves. He likes to have one or more of these pens always empty in readiness for an emergency. I have an interest in this business, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) has an interest in the hospitals. If I said to Steve that his expenses were too high and he must close some of these hospital pens, he would object strongly. Furthermore, if I forced it, he would have more dead calves.

I just can’t see closing hospital beds. Of course, I will admit it is better than closing hospitals. But some people feel the government is still trying to close these small hospitals by cutting beds, puffing the hospitals in an uneconomical position and then saying they must close because they are inefficient.

The government had to admit that these rural hospitals were efficient when they tried to close them before. It was consistently proved that they were economical, and much more so than the large city hospitals. Our rural hospitals were operating from about $70 to $90 per bed per day while the large city hospitals were operating from $200 to $300 per bed per day. We understand the large hospitals have more equipment, which makes up some of the difference, but not all the difference.

The Ministry of Health feels that doctors are putting patients in hospital beds without a good reason. In our area, it could be that some of these hospital patients could go to nursing homes, if there were any nursing-home beds available, which there aren’t. Some of these people might not have reached a position that put them in a hospital, if there were adequate homes for the aged where supervision and facilities would be available to them.

If you were a doctor, Mr. Speaker, what would you do with a person who is living alone who you find is not sick enough to go to a hospital but too sick to be left alone, when there is no room in a home for the aged and no nursing home beds? There’s nothing else for the doctor to do but to put the patient in the hospital.

I believe there is money to be saved in the health system, but closing hospital beds is not one of the ways. It is a great concern why we have so many health problems. It is a great concern how to cut health costs. There is one place where we could kill two birds with one stone, and that is with tobacco and alcohol.

[4:30]

It is a well-known fact that alcohol and tobacco are injurious to our health. Anything that injures our health is bound to increase our health-care costs. We could put enough tax on all alcoholic beverages and tobacco to double or triple the cost of the product. This would discourage its use, and all the tax collected could be turned over to the health budget. Advertising of these products could also be banned.

On December 12, 1977, the Ottawa Board of Education passed a resolution, which reads as follows: “Whereas the attitudes of students are deeply influenced by the media, that the Ottawa Board of Education deplore the advertising for alcoholic beverages carried on television and radio networks; that the Ottawa Board of Education invite the provincial and federal governments to take action to correct the present situation; that the Ottawa Board of Education invite other boards of education and separate school boards in Ontario to support this motion.”

This resolution was endorsed by the Grey County Board of Education and sent to me. I wrote to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, sent him a copy of the resolution and said I supported it and felt that such advertising should be banned. The minister’s reply to me states: “Interestingly, those jurisdictions which have banned advertising have seen the largest increases in per capita consumption. Any change in our current philosophy of controlling and monitoring beverage alcohol advertising would cost many hundreds of jobs, loss of industry and perhaps only result in increased exposure from US television, over which we have no control.”

At the start of the paragraph he says that where they banned advertising there was more consumed; but, before he finishes, he says that if advertising were banned there would be a loss of industry. In my response to that paragraph, I would start with the same word he used: “Interestingly.” Interestingly, that paragraph does not make sense.

Mr. Ashe: There is an advertising industry, you know. That’s what he’s talking about.

Mr. McKessock: Oh, it’s not the liquor industry?

Mr. Ashe: No.

Mr. McKessock: Does the member agree that liquor consumption would increase if we banned advertising?

Mr. Ashe: I don’t know. If that’s what he says, that’s what he says.

Mr. McKessock: That’s what the minister has stated.

Mr. Ashe: At least I listened to the letter once and knew what he was saying; that’s more than you obviously did.

Mr. McKessock: I am glad the member has helped him out in this regard, but there is part of this that is awful hard to understand.

I sent the same resolution to the Minister of Health, and, interestingly, he never replied.

I believe the doctors have to take some responsibility and make some input into how these savings can be made. They are in a good position to know in what areas money can be saved and should come forward with some good advice to the Minister of Health.

I also believe that all doctors should stay in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. If their fees are too low, then negotiations should take place about the OHIP fee schedule. A user fee could be charged for each office visit or doctor’s visit. This could also help in cutting down on frivolous calls.

I am sorry that we seem always to have to react and fight against things that have happened to us that should not have happened to us, such as hospital bed closings and registry office closings. The Niagara Escarpment Act is another thing that should not have happened to us. I am pleased that, after all the presentations to the government and the Niagara Escarpment Commission and complaints from people in all parts of Ontario about the proposals brought out in February 1978, and the presentation of my bill, Bill 62, An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the government backed off on the area it was going to control under this act.

Although it is good that the area has been cut down, for those of us who still live in the area under these controls not much has changed. We hear rumours that the final plan -- and I am glad the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) is in the House -- when it is put before us later this year will be more acceptable. It had better be, or the government will have a bigger fight on its hands as this plan comes down to the wire.

I fail to see how this plan for the Niagara Escarpment area will ever be acceptable until it is turned back to the local municipalities to control through their own official plans and zoning bylaws. This could be done right now: disband the Niagara Escarpment Commission and stop this useless waste of money and duplication of planning.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: You don’t mean that, do you, Bob?

Mr. McKessock: I do mean that, sir. I have here a newspaper article headlined “Maloney Justifies Firing Investigator.” Interestingly enough, he has been hired by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I hope this isn’t where the government picks up all its personnel -- from among people who have been fired because they have had extensive police investigations done on them. In the statement, Maloney says after he read the police report on Mr. David Cossett. “I was even more alarmed. The public would have been outraged if I had kept him in my employ.” Members know my objection to the things which have been happening in the Niagara Escarpment. We wonder if this is where the government obtains its staff.

I might also mention that last Friday night at a meeting in Wiarton of the Northern Ratepayers’ Association, at which 400 people turned out, they were just as alarmed as they were one year ago. It is too bad, and I certainly hope this new plan will soon be before us in a much transformed way from what the proposals were last year. Cutting back the area was fine, but for those of us who still live in the development control area, really nothing has happened.

I receive letters from people who say they don’t know who to support because it seems all three leaders are in favour of the Niagara Escarpment Act. To be fair to both opposition parties, I must point out that in 1973 when this act came into force, it was supported only by the majority Conservative Party.

The NDP did not support it because they didn’t think it was strong enough. It is a lucky thing this country was developed before the NDP party and some of these environmental groups were around.

Mr. Makarchuk: The NDP is not the NDP party, which is being redundant. Let’s be accurate: New Democratic Party or NDP, not NDP party.

Mr. McKessock: I apologize. It is lucky this country was developed before the NDP and some of the environmental groups were around --

Mr. Makarchuk: If we had been around you would still have some of the country left. As it is, it is owned by somebody else. You have sold the damned thing.

Mr. Ashe: If you were in power, we would still be back in the horse and buggy days, I agree.

Mr. McKessock: This country would never have materialized.

Mr. Makarchuk: At least you would own the horse. Right now it is owned in New York.

Mr. McKessock: We would still be in the bush and --

Mr. Ashe: I would rather have it owned in New York and be able to drive it.

Mr. McKessock: -- no one would have been allowed to cut a tree or build a log cabin.

Back to the party leaders: I was at a public meeting in the St. Lawrence Centre in Toronto the night it was jammed to the rafters with environmentalists and Toronto folk. The NDP leader was there together with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, the minister in charge of this whole mess for the government, the Liberal leader (Mr. S. Smith), and Mr. Gertler, who dreamed up some of this protection plan back in 1963. We have been spending needless millions of dollars on the plan ever since.

Of the three party leaders that night, the Liberal leader was the only one who stood up and said we must support the landowners and their property rights, and he was booed for doing it.

The NDP would take away all property rights.

Mr. Makarchuk: Baloney.

Mr. McKessock: This country was built on property rights and ownership of land.

Mr. Van Horne: They don’t draw many votes in Grey county, do they, those NDPers?

Mr. McKessock: Call it tradition, call it culture, call it whatever you like, but do not destroy our country by dismantling the pride we have in ownership of property and the expected and cherished rights that go along with it.

Mr. Makarchuk: Like who owns our manufacturing industries, who owns our oil industries, who owns our resources? How about answering that question, if you want to talk about the country?

Mr. McKessock: In Grey riding, we’re more concerned about our land.

Mr. Makarchuk: Look after your own selfish ends, is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. McKessock: When you have a Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act that infringes on your rights, then it’s up to you to defend them.

Mr. Makarchuk: How come you don’t defend the takeover of resources?

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Grey has the floor. Will he please ignore the interjections and proceed.

Mr. McKessock: The members have seen what the Conservative government wants to do to them. They brought in the act at a time when they had a majority government, when very little could be done to stop them. The 1975 election slowed them down, and 1977 made them choke. If they would just choke once more and swallow the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, we could proceed with some sense of accomplishment.

I notice in the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s latest issue of Cuesta --

Mr. Makarchuk: Who has to pay for the escarpment?

Mr. McKessock: -- the chairman, Mr. Ivor Mullin, is still saying: “We welcome your comments and we value your input; let’s hear from you.” They’ve heard plenty from us but they don’t listen very well. Their own advisory committee, set up by the commission and comprising people felt to be knowledgeable and fair about the subject, told them to scrap their proposals before they were made last February 1978 because the advisory committee knew they were not acceptable. To my knowledge, the commission members have never met face to face with their own advisory committee but only through staff. They seem to want to keep a certain distance between the Niagara Escarpment Commission and their own advisory committee. “Let’s hear from you,” he says. They still have hope that from somewhere out of the Niagara Escarpment will come some supporters.

Now I’d like to switch to agriculture. I’m sorry the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) isn’t in the House; he was here a few minutes ago. Out of a 28-page throne speech, four small paragraphs were devoted to agriculture. If that shows the emphasis this government puts on agriculture, it is very small. Agriculture has always been regarded as the backbone of our country but it won’t stay that way unless some attention is directed to it.

Ontario has always been a leading province in agriculture but Quebec is gradually leaving us behind. Most of us free enterprisers do not like many handouts and subsidies. But what do you do when a neighbouring province gives all kinds of incentives to farmers and allows them to update their facilities and become more sufficient? It happened with milk. We in Ontario are complaining because we don’t have enough milk quota now, although we did not fill our quota a few years ago. That allowed Quebec to take some of it.

We used to be the Canadian leaders in hog production. Because of low-interest loans and capital grants to Quebec farmers by the Quebec government, Quebec is now the leading hog producer in Canada. One year ago the Ontario agriculture minister, at the southwestern conference in Ridgetown for Ontario pork producers, said Ontario hog producers should consider expanding their enterprises. Hc noted that Canada now imports large amounts of pork. He regretted that Ontario was no longer the largest producing province. He said Quebec killed 131,500 more hogs last year than Ontario. While the minister was saying Ontario should consider expanding, Quebec already had given its farmers the means to expand. They responded, pushing Quebec into number one position in pork production. They moved from a 72 per cent self-sufficiency in 1974 to 105 per cent now.

[4:45]

Where would the government get the money to support agriculture the way it should? It could start by shifting a little and putting first things first. It could take the $6,500,000 used to subsidize the Ontario Racing Commission for starters. Right now Quebec is giving grants of $20,000 to a farmer who wants to get into the feedlot business. I don’t like grants but if we want to maintain the industry and have our farmers competitive with Quebec farmers, then we must see that we have the same opportunity.

Mr. Makarchuk: Ford has no reticence about accepting grants and I don’t see why you should worry too much.

Mr. McKessock: Right, I am glad the member brought up that point. The government was not long in giving Ford Motor Company $28,000,000 to keep the car business booming in Windsor and in Ontario and make it competitive with the US. Is agriculture not as important in Ontario as the Ford Motor Company?

Mr. Makarchuk: I agree with you.

Mr. McKessock: We must keep a close eye on agriculture in Ontario both in the farmland preservation area and in our production units. If we are going to have a tile drainage program that gives six per cent money to some farmers to tile drain, we must see that enough money is available so all farmers who tile drain receive this money. We cannot credit ourselves with a program that only helps some. I believe in equal opportunity for all and this is not what we have been getting. If we are going to have a dairy herd improvement program to test and record milk production in herds, we must provide this service to all who want it and not just to some.

I would like to talk about industry and small business for a while. The same thing applies here. If we are going to give grants to Ford Motor Company to expand in Windsor, we had better be prepared to give grants to Kroehler furniture company in Durham to expand. If we are going to give grants to Reed Paper to install pollution control equipment, then we had better be prepared to give grants to Peppler-Sklar in Hanover to put in pollution controlling cyclone systems that the Ministry of the Environment is pushing for. We must not lose sight of the fact that these small industries are just as important as, or even more important than the large ones. If anything crippled Peppler-Sklar in Hanover, which employs 365 people, everyone in town would be affected from the barber to the tax collector. I doubt if Windsor would have fallen if Ford had not built its addition there.

We must remember also that at least 60 per cent of our jobs are in the area of small business. Eighty per cent of the jobs created last year were from small business enterprises, businesses employing fewer than 20 people. Seventy-two per cent of all jobs created in the last eight years have been created by such small enterprises and these figures are from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. This proves how important small business is and how we must encourage and support it.

The section in the throne speech on tourism, another important part of Ontario and Grey riding, was two short paragraphs, mainly on the “We treat you royally” program, a program that nobody seems to care too much for. What has it done? It has made a lot of lapel buttons. They say this year they are going to train 25,000 tourism employees on how to treat people. I feel the resorts in Grey are already treating people royally and would rather have seen the 10 per cent tax dropped off meals in restaurants over $6.

I would like to say a few words about our so-called energy problem. I am quite sure we do not have one. We could be self-sufficient in energy if we wanted to without any trouble. We have enough farmland to grow energy crops unless we allow our farmland to get paved over. Methane gas production from manure could make most farmers self-sufficient. We could make more use of the wind and sun. As for nuclear power, it appears to be unlimited.

It is unfortunate that the government has spent so much of our money on nuclear power and gone so far beyond our needs, If I were the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) or the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), I would not cry about it too long but would take steps to sell it, even if incentives had to be given to do this. Here we have power we cannot store, sitting there ready to be used, costing us money whether we use it not.

I am one of the eight per cent who heat their homes electrically, and I like it. My wife likes it even more; there is no dust, no drafts, even heat in each room, or different heat in each room if you prefer.

Mr. Martel: And the price is right.

Mr. McKessock: Yes, it costs a little more, but it is better. You drive a better car at a little more cost, too.

Does it not make sense to give a $500 or $600 grant to those who would install electric heat? It turns something that is sitting idle into a money-maker. You start to use that energy and get paid for it; you will not be long getting your $600 back, and then it is gravy.

Before I close, I want to come back to another issue to do with senior citizens, We need some form of subsidized taxi service in our small towns and villages to allow senior citizens to get to the stores, doctors’ offices, et cetera. I am thinking of small places such as Palmerston, Harriston, Clifford, Chatsworth and Dundalk, where the population ranges from 500 to 1,800 people; they are not large enough to support a full-time taxi.

Surely, when the Toronto Transit Commission is subsidized to the tune of $105,000,000 a year, there could be a few dollars to help the senior citizens in places like Palmerston get to the store.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure for me to respond to some of the things in the throne speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Applause]

Mr. Warner: Almost all my colleagues applauded. I will have to work on that.

Before I begin, I realize that all members of the assembly would want to indicate that the throne speech should in no way reflect upon the integrity and good office of the Lieutenant Governor. She is a fine person; I have had occasion to meet her, and I know she would not wish in any way to be held responsible for the speech we had to endure.

I might also say before I begin that I certainly appreciate the reappointment of yourself as Deputy Speaker, and I would like to say to the Speaker, who is not with us at this moment, that I also appreciate his reappointment.

New Democrats across this country fought for some long time to bring good medical health care to the citizens of this country. Both at the federal level and throughout many provinces my colleagues in the New Democratic Party fought hard over a long period of time to wrestle medical care away from the private interests -- those who viewed it as an opportunity to make money -- and to bring instead a program which said that every person had the right to proper medical care and that it was a social responsibility of the government to provide medical care.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when we finally got it, when we finally convinced the Liberals in Ottawa that they had to bring in the program, it was written into the agreement that universal access must be guaranteed. We progressed in Ontario along those lines and, until a little while ago, we had almost reached that stage where we could say with some pride that we had a public health program which was available to every citizen and was available with equal access to all. Now in the last few months we see that universal access is being threatened.

In fact we see that the very existence of a medicare program in Ontario is bring threatened. And for what reason? It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, and you know it as well as I do: Because those private interests are sharpening their talons; they are sitting on the sidelines ready to pounce at the very opportunity when our public program disappears and they once again can enter into the insurance market and once again assure us that some citizens in Ontario will not have access to the health care program: health care at a price; health care to the highest bidder.

It is quite interesting, I had several calls on the weekend from my constituents. One gentleman in particular phoned and said, “You know, I believe in the private enterprise system. I have no quarrel with doctors offering their services to whoever can afford to pay the extra amount. That’s fine. They are perfectly free to do that in my opinion, but not in our publicly-funded hospitals. Surely I, as a citizen, when I go into that hospital, can be guaranteed that the fees I paid for OHIP, through my premiums and taxes, will cover the services. I, as a believer in private enterprise,” he said, “do not understand why that should be allowed to occur in the public hospitals.”

Of course, I said, “I agree with you completely. I don’t understand why the government is allowing this. I have no idea why they would do such a thing; but they have.” This man gave me his case of having attended the Scarborough General Hospital where he required the services of an anaesthetist -- I always have trouble with that one, but Hansard spells it properly so I don’t have to worry.

Mr. Van Horne: Just call him the gas man.

Mr. Warner: Because all the anaesthetists are opted out at Scarborough General Hospital he received a bill. He has no choice. He cannot select an opted-in anaesthetist because there isn’t one. He received a bill. He was incensed. How was it that someone could use publicly-funded facilities, after he has paid his premiums and after he has paid his taxes, and then get a bill? I don’t understand it either.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read you a suggestion: “Commends to the attention of the government a system of negotiating fees and utilization rates concurrently, so as better to promote the two objectives of quality care and cost containment without economically penalizing medical practitioners.

“If, for example, the government were to negotiate a multi-year agreement with the profession, incorporating a substantial increase in fees in exchange for a commitment to hold constant the level of utilization [decelerate the revolving doors] both these objectives could be achieved. To ensure cost containment the fee increases for subsequent years could be made contingent on the utilization performance in the first year.

“Such a scheme has now been successfully and amicably negotiated in Quebec and seems to be working very well on the basis of early anecdotal reports. It appears that such a scheme would address the legitimate concerns of the medical profession over the level of fees, as well as the need for responsible cost control by the government. If so, the vexing trends in medical practice and in opting out might be reversed or at least mitigated.”

[5:00]

Did I make that suggestion? Sounds reasonable enough to think that I would have made such a suggestion. That suggestion was put forward and agreed to by the members of the New Democratic Party, the members of the Liberal Party and the members of the Conservative Party who were sitting on that select committee on health-care costs; there was unanimous agreement on that suggestion. The committee, also unanimously, went on to say that: “User fees” -- and that’s what the extra billing is -- “by definition shift costs to those who are sick and therefore undermine one of the basic foundations of the scheme. The committee contends that, to further penalize those who are sick, usually a condition beyond the control of the patient, would have a very adverse, compounding effect upon what are already unfortunate circumstances.

“In summary, having weighed all the evidence presented to it very carefully, the committee concludes that user charges for medical care are inappropriate at this time. Since supplementary charges by opted-out physicians are a form of user charges, the committee is concerned about recent increases in the rate of opting out, particularly in some communities where most physicians have exercised this option. The committee is sensitive to the underlying causes of the dissatisfaction of these physicians and urges the government to reconsider the mechanism for establishing the level of benefits under OHIP.”

Committee members, including the Conservative members of that committee, were unanimous. We saw that we have a serious problem in the province with opting out, and we have a serious problem with access to our medical care system. The committee put forward a reasonable solution to the problem; a solution which is being used currently in the province of Quebec, and used successfully.

What was the government’s response to this? Nothing. The Minister of Health refused to take part in the debate on the select committee report. He was given the opportunity; he was offered time in the debate, it was to be set aside for him to participate, and he refused. He again refused in the House, under questioning, to consider seriously the suggestion put forward by the committee. It appears to me that the committee’s work was a waste of time.

The committee had excellent counsel. It had the use of economic specialists, people who were specialized in medical economics. It had the use of top officials in the Ministry of Health. It had the undivided attention of several members of this assembly. It applied itself for quite a few weeks, and came up with a pretty comprehensive report and a very reasonable suggestion as to how to handle the current problems; and they are serious problems.

They are serious problems, because unless we solve them the public health care system we fought so hard for is going to disappear, there is no question about that. When one examines the facts; when one examines what is happening in our system, how access is being denied to those who cannot afford to pay; when one looks at the change in the regulations allowing doctors to bill not only in their office but to use the public facilities in order to extra-bill -- to have their cake and eat it too -- then one knows that our health care system is under attack.

Now we are into the political forum where we can do nothing else but fight, opposition against government, fight hard to retain our public health care system. The shame of it is that a select committee of this assembly, with representation from each of the three parties, sat down and in a spirit of co-operation examined the problem and came up with some reasonable suggestions; and this government, particularly the Minister of Health, in a cavalier fashion tosses those reasonable suggestions aside. Instead, it decides to kotow to the private interests. I suppose the minister will receive an award from London Life at some point as they wait for the day when they can bring in their inequitable solution.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you very plainly that I will not rest until we have rewon public health-care coverage for the people of Ontario. It is a right; it’s not something that’s open to the shop. When one runs a public hospital or operates a doctor’s office, it isn’t like running Mr. Submarine. It’s just not that kind of business. It’s a social responsibility and one which this government should be taking seriously.

I know as well as any member of this assembly that the doctors have concerns. I understand some of those concerns. After all, I not only sat on the committee but I went and personally visited two hospitals and spent a couple of days there talking with the doctors, the nursing staff and the patients. I got a much better and deeper understanding of the problems which physicians face.

Certainly, I would be very upset if I had done work and wasn’t repaid for three months. That’s what happens to a lot of physicians. They put their bills into OHIP, and because the government doesn’t know how to run a computer system it’s three or four months before they get back their cheques. That’s a legitimate concern of a doctor and it should be of any person who is paid a salary. I understand that. I also understand that in this age of computers the government should know how to run a computer system.

Mr. McClellan: You should get Allen Gordon to show you how to run it.

Mr. Warner: What’s interesting is that when one examines the health-care system in the province of Saskatchewan, one finds that under similar circumstances most doctors aren’t unhappy. One of the reasons they’re not unhappy is that within a couple of weeks of putting in their submissions they get paid. Their system is so well refined that a doctor can see a patient and opt in, and see the same patient the next day for a different matter and opt out, go through the billing system and receive his cheque within a couple of weeks. No wonder the doctors in Saskatchewan are happy.

Our doctors in Ontario would be happy too if they had the benefit of that good government scheme, but they don’t. Instead, they have a fumbling government which doesn’t know how to run a computer system.

They’re not hollow words, Mr. Speaker, I sat watching in awe as officials from the Ministry of the Treasury battled with officials from the Ministry of Health over whose figures out of the computer were correct.

Mr. McClellan: They don’t even know how many subscribers they’ve got.

Mr. Warner: Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? When we talked about those people who would be eligible for premium assistance, the Ministry of Health told us in round figures that there were about 1,000 people who were eligible for partial premium assistance; but the Ministry of Treasury in the same government said 163,000 people. As it turns rout under scrutiny, the people from Treasury were right. The people from Health didn’t know how to run the computer.

That’s one of the reasons the doctors are so upset. They call it bureaucratic harassment. Why they say harassment is that unless that claim is settled within six months the claim is denied. The physician may have entered his claim on time and may have provided what he thought was the correct information, but through the government foul-up in the computer system he ends up by having his claim take six months and then be disallowed so that the work he did is not credited. No wonder they’re upset.

The reason the committee proposed taking a look at a multi-year contract with the doctors is that we understood clearly from the doctors that because they haven’t had what they view to be a sufficient increase in the rates they have decided to see more patients. In our common language, that is a revolving-door medical practice. If the rates don’t go up for visits, just get more people through the office. They feel they have to do that.

We said: “Fine; why don’t we enter into a two-year or a three-year contract, with the second year being dependent upon the utilization rate of the first year? If the utilization rate doesn’t go up, you will get an increase in your rates. If the rate does go up, you won’t get an increase in your rates. Fair?” It was fair to the doctors in Quebec, it works there.

But oh no; that can’t even be considered by the Minister of Health. He won’t even discuss it in this chamber, as I challenged him to last week. He prefers instead to evade the question and to cater to the private interests.

The minister should no longer enjoy the confidence of this House; that’s for sure. He’s made a botch of this whole thing, from start to end. The result of it is that in some communities in Ontario they don’t have the luxury of a choice. In some hospitals, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, there isn’t any choice.

He had the audacity to stand in this House the other day and say the patient will have the choice if he insists. I ask him to put himself in the position of a patient lying in a bed in the hospital waiting surgery when the anaesthetist comes in and says: “If you insist we can get an opted-in anaesthetist, except there aren’t any in this hospital. I’m sure if you insist and lie here for a while we’ll find one from some other hospital.”

That is total nonsense; that isn’t going to happen. A patient isn’t going to insist on his right for an opted-in doctor as he lies in his bed waiting for surgery the next day. The minister doesn’t even choose to be reasonable.

What bothers me as well about the hospital situation is that because of the cruel cuts which have taken place the hospital staff are forced to work under some extraordinary circumstances.

I was astonished, quite frankly, when I visited Scarborough General Hospital on Friday, February 23 of this year, and spent six and a half hours there, to learn that, on average, each day there are 275 patients in the emergency ward to be dealt with by a handful of staff and that they are dealing with them in cramped quarters. When I say cramped quarters, I’m talking about the total emergency facility space being smaller than the space of this chamber in total. That includes operating rooms, the X-ray facilities and the waiting room. The supervisor in charge of the total emergency service has a broom closet, a real broom closet, with the world’s smallest desk placed in it.

The conditions under which that staff are operating are absolutely phenomenal. If that’s not bad enough, the chief nurse in charge, Ms. Nora Murphy, the supervisor of emergency services, told me it has reached such a crucial situation in Scarborough General that she is afraid that one of these days she is going to misplace a patient in the emergency ward.

There are so many people that they cannot handle them. When they come in they are assessed quickly and sent off to different places, some to X-ray, some to the operating room and some to be seen by a specialist. She said: “We have too many people for the space and not enough staff. I am going to misplace a patient one of these days.”

During last year more than 100,000 people came through the emergency doors of Scarborough General Hospital. Many of those people had to wait in the corridors on stretchers. Many of them waited six, eight and 10 hours for help. Many of those were elderly people, because Scarborough General is forced to serve the needs of elderly people from nursing homes from as far away as Stouffville and Port Elgin, down into the southern portion of Scarborough, and out into Pickering and Durham, and into the York region. Those elderly patients, if they do not have a truly emergency situation, will wait six, eight, 10 hours to get help.

[5:15]

It’s not the fault of the staff. The staff was more than diligent. The staff was more than cheerful in the way it went about its business. The doctors, the nurses, the nursing assistants; all of them were trying to move as quickly as they could and cover as much territory as they could.

I guess the real crunch for me came when Ms. Murphy said she’d been at the hospital 21 years -- she was there at the time when the hospital was run by the sisters -- and over this period of time the worst change she had seen, because of the cruel cuts of the government, was that no longer was there time for tender, loving care by the nursing staff.

Some members may think that’s not important. They may think that’s something frivolous. Unless you’ve been in a hospital as a patient trying to convalesce, you can’t really appreciate what “tender, loving care” means. It’s that extra attention from a nurse to find out if you are comfortable. “Would you like some reading material? Do you need a visitor? Have you had a visitor for a while? Would you like someone from the clergy to come and visit you? Is there something we can do for you besides the purely medical treatment you’re receiving?” That’s not possible any longer at Scarborough General --

Mr. Hennessy: Tender, loving care.

Mr. Warner: -- nor, I doubt, anywhere, including Thunder Bay, because of the hospital cuts, because of this government’s activities.

Mr. Hennessy: More so.

Mr. Warner: That’s not the worst. This visit, I remind you, was on February 23. As of April 1, Scarborough General was being ordered to cut back a further three quarters of a million dollars.

I don’t know where they’re going to cut. There is no plush carpet to roll up. There are no fancy chairs to get rid of. I saw all of those administrative facilities. Do you know where they’re going to cut? They are likely to close down one of the operating rooms one day a week.

Do you know what that does? That cancels electives; which in turn means that someone, at 10 a.m. on the morning he was going to go into the hospital, will be phoned at home and told: “I’m sorry, despite all the arrangements you made at work, the arrangements for day care, and your psyching yourself up for this operation, don’t come in today. We don’t know when you should come in, but we’ll let you know.” That’s what’s going to happen. It happened about 300 times at Scarborough Centenary Hospital last year. It’s likely to happen more often this year.

It’s obvious that I, or any member of the opposition, could go on at great length regarding the public health-care system, because I feel very deeply, as I know members over here do as well, that this system for which we fought so hard is under attack, and that unless we maintain our vigilance, unless we’re able to confront the government directly, that system is going to disappear.

Mr. Ashe: Don’t worry about the money; easy come, easy go.

Mr. Warner: While the member for Durham West has absolutely no concern for the public health-care system, while he’s rich enough to pay the bills --

Mr. Ashe: Give it away.

Mr. Warner: -- his constituents aren’t.

Mr. Ashe: No. I’m worried about my constituents; that’s the difference. They pay the taxes too.

Mr. Warner: As long as I can breathe I’ll fight for a health-care system, because it’s a basic right and because it’s a necessity in this society. No matter how hard this government punishes the health-care system, I’ll fight and I’ll fight, and this public will be heard.

Mr. Nixon: As long as you draw breath.

Mr. Ashe: Hurray, hurray.

Mr. Hennessy: For God’s sake don’t fight Rotenberg, that’s all.

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I do want, first to congratulate the mover and the seconder to the speech from the throne. I’d like to say that we have the addition of two very capable representatives in the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) and the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay).

I do want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, for the way you keep order in this Legislature. Sometimes it is not easy, but nevertheless you meet those responsibilities very well, and so does the Deputy Speaker.

A lot has been said about hospitalization and OHIP. I happened to turn on the television a few weeks ago. The President of the United States was making his address on the state of the union to the Senate and Congress. He spent a great deal of his speech assuring the American people that his government would do everything possible to keep down the cost of hospitalization.

They are not, in that rich country, covered the way we are here. It is quite easy to criticize and find fault. It is costing us almost $11,000,000 a day. Yet, some of these people who fought so hard to keep down the OHIP costs to the individual are now demanding that we have better services. In any business you have to tailor your costs to your means.

We would like to be as humanitarian as they are. Nevertheless, hospitalization costs are very burdensome on all taxpayers in this province.

I have a slip here. I spent nine days in Toronto General Hospital. I asked for my bill because there had been a lot of discussion and I was curious. I waited for a week or two before I got it. It didn’t cost me a cent. I happen to be in that golden age group, I do not pay any stipend. The rate was $206.55 a day; for nine days that amounted to $1,858.95, but it didn’t cost me a nickel.

On top of that, because I happen to be a member of the Legislature, as is every other member, I am covered by London Life with semi-private protection. That bill came to another $99.00. All I had to pay was 40 cents a day for the use of the telephone -- $3.60.

I just tell you about that, Mr. Speaker, to give you a general idea of what the actual costs are for people hit with sickness. That could be higher today. Admittedly, the cost is not as high in rural hospitals because they don’t have the same facilities that hospitals in Toronto have. Still, it is a very costly business.

It is very true that we are all concerned because doctors are opting out. I have spoken to doctors in the rural communities. They are well satisfied because a small municipality has a medical centre. They talk matters over and say: “We will charge you a fair rate. We should get more, but you are performing a service in the community that we need. We will spread it on the taxpayers.”

Mr. Nixon: Usually the doctors own it.

Mr. Villeneuve: They are reasonably well satisfied. I do know they may be a little slow. That is new to me -- it wasn’t brought to my attention about the hills coming in -- but I know they are very happy that they don’t have to collect most of their bills themselves.

Admittedly, in an urban area like this where you have specialists with high rents to pay, who have to pay increased salaries and one thing and another, there is an understandably serious problem. But the minister is working with the OMA and trying to resolve it as best he can.

I heard the member refer to Quebec. Let me say they can force their people and say:

“Here, you’ve got to do that.”

An hon. member: Why not?

Mr. Villeneuve: But that has not come about in Ontario. We are still a province of free enterprise where we have the right to worship and do as we like as long as we’re within the law. That does not always exist in Quebec in that manner.

Mr. Nixon: They have compulsory church in Quebec?

Mr. Warner: They worked out a deal with the doctors.

Mr. Villeneuve: That’s quite all right, but at a much higher rate than we pay here. That may be some of the fault, but where does the money come from? It’s costing over $4 billion a year right now.

Mr. Warner: Less than the United States.

Mr. Nixon: The federal government pays that.

Mr. Villeneuve: They put in their share, but they equalize it across the country. In Newfoundland it’s a lot cheaper than it is here, as the member knows --

Mr. Nixon: We’re better off than they are there.

Mr. Villeneuve: They take the average right across, so as a result our dollar shrinks every way, percentage shrinks as well.

But I’m not finding fault; it’s a wonderful service. Limited as it may be according to some, it’s still perhaps one of the best services there is in the world today.

Mr. Warner: Fight to keep it there.

Mr. Villeneuve: Some find fault today with community services.

Mr. Nixon: Probably yours.

Mr. Villeneuve: But no matter what service there is, once the government takes the initiative to try to serve the public they demand; they demand more and more, but when it comes to an increase in taxes they become furious. Whose fault is it today if there is an enrolment falloff in the schools? Who are you going to blame, the government, because the people are not raising the families they did?

Mr. Worton: No, the pill.

Mr. Nixon: What have you done lately?

Mr. Villeneuve: We are caught in a position where the costs are going up, and yet I think it’s about a four and one half per cent increase the school boards are given to settle with their teachers this year. There’s not one board I know of that has settled within that percentage range. So again, somebody has got to pay the difference and the poor taxpayer is going to be involved.

In these times it is not easy to govern at any level, whether municipal, provincial or federal. We are all prone to find fault. But some of us who lived in the depression will realize we are living in a great country; it is a happy world as far as this country is concerned, with not too much trouble. Yet there is more discontent in households than there ever has been. The poor are trying to live like the rich; there’s no distinction. Everybody is driving good cars; they’ve all got the facilities in their homes they need; whether they are bought on credit cards or anything else, nobody does without. But when it comes to having to pay, that’s a story that’s altogether different.

Mr. Warner: Come on, Osie; 25,000 in poverty right now.

Mr. Villeneuve: I’m not going to dwell on this too much. I think the government has taken a sound approach to the economic problems that are confronting not only this province but this country --

Mr. Warner: Should take a sound beating.

Mr. Villeneuve: I think a government that’s been in power -- they may say that we’re tired and old, sometimes we can’t deny that; but you compare this province to --

Mr. Nixon: Not you, Osie.

Mr. Warner: Decrepit; decrepit, worn and senile.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- the rest of the governments in this country and you can understand why 50 per cent of the immigrants who came to Canada since the war have come to settle in Ontario. Something has attracted them here. It wasn’t because it was a Conservative government, it’s because it was a good government; that’s what attracted the people.

Mr. Warner: If this government keeps it up they will ask to leave.

Mr. Hennessy: Because of loving care.

Mr. Warner: Punishing everyone.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have different things to speak about, but one thing I do want to speak about is the dairy industry in general. I’m not being too critical because, after all, I have 160 of the best dairy farmers in my constituency who enjoy a very valuable market in the city of Montreal. They ship their milk daily there and have been doing it for 70 years.

[5:30]

I also have another 80 or 85 who ship to industrial plants, but the federal government -- and rightly so -- has voted so much money for so much production of industrial milk across this country. Agreement has been made for a certain allotment. That was set in 1971. I’m not blaming anybody in general, but we never had too much of a problem in eastern Ontario until the new chairman of the dairy commission in Ottawa came on the scene.

The gentleman’s name is Mr. Choquette who was a very valuable organizer for the Liberal Party in Quebec. They like him there, and I can understand that.

Mr. Nixon: We should have made him chairman of Hydro.

Mr. Worton: He had an axe to grind.

Mr. Villeneuve: Facts are facts.

Mr. Nixon: It was terrible of those Liberals to do that.

Mr. Villeneuve: We agreed in 1971 on the overall picture of industrial milk production in Canada on a total allotment of 443 million pounds of butterfat. Admittedly, there was no doubt that that had to be revised because a surplus was created. The federal government lost millions of dollars and just had to place the surplus in storage and sell it off at a very low price on the world market. In April 1977, the figures were revised. I want to give this here so that members will understand exactly what I am trying to say.

Mr. Nixon: We will listen.

Mr. Villeneuve: Ontario came into this system in 1970, the same as Quebec, which is the major producer of milk. Quebec had for its share 196,800,000 pounds butterfat. Ontario had 148,000,000 pounds butterfat. That was later revised. Admittedly, in eastern Ontario, we had very poor years in 1972, 1973 and 1974.

Mr. Nixon: We voted a lot of money to help you.

Mr. Villeneuve: In the case of our producers who were in pool one, that milk was transferred to supply the needs of the city of Toronto, which was fine. That was the best market, the best return and the most essential place to look after in diverting that milk. But the pool two shippers who shipped their milk for use as industrial products were penalized for it because that was used against them when the revision came in 1976. Strange as it may be, Quebec province kept building their herds and kept building their production in spite of going over their allotted production, they still were given a far more favourable consideration when this revision was made. Of all the millions of dollars that were spent to support butter and to support skim milk, 80 per cent of it was caused by overproduction in one province, Quebec.

I am not at this time trying to divide this country. Goodness knows, we are trying to bring it together.

Mr. Nixon: No, they are all good fellows.

Mr. Villeneuve: But facts are facts. When this revision was made, Quebec was cut from 196,800,000 to 177,600,000 which meant -- and this is what tells the story -- their reduction was 9.6 per cent. In Ontario our production declined from 148,800,000 pounds to 116,000,000 pounds butterfat, or 32,800,000 pounds butterfat, which is a reduction of 22 per cent.

The provinces in the west -- Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta -- produce less than 15 per cent of the total production, while Quebec and Ontario produce more than 80 per cent, but they were cut 27 per cent, Saskatchewan 37 per cent and Alberta 32 per cent.

Production in the Maritimes only amounts to 15,000,000 pounds butterfat altogether, and their quotas were revised very little -- they were just about the same. They have enough for their own consumption.

What I am coming to is this: We have processing plants in eastern Ontario that closed last year. A plant in Gananoque which employed 80 people could process 1,000,000 pounds of milk daily. The firm that owns that plant bought a plant in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, opposite northeastern Ontario. They are operating that plant, which has a capacity of 1,000,000 pounds when the full milk flow is on in the summer. Every pound of that product is manufactured and diverted to the city of Toronto to supply the Ontario market, and not one pound of that milk is produced in Ontario.

Our cheddar cheese factories are crying for milk. Cheese plants are operating at 49 per cent of their quota capacity. You cannot do that indefinitely in any kind of business, because operating expenses are going up, irrespective -- the costs of hydro, oil, labour and everything else -- operating costs of every kind are going up. But if you have a lesser amount to process, it means the finished product cost you more per pound.

The result is that we are putting the few small operators that are left to the wall. They are going out of business.

This is an independent report and this is what it says about the dairy products. I say to the Ontario Milk Marketing Board that they have some responsibility in this. They made this deal.

When we talk about the dairy industry, let me tell you why I speak of the cheese industry as being so important. Back in 1904, Canada exported 234,000,000 pounds of cheese, and more than 90 per cent of that was manufactured in Ontario. Eastern Ontario has never gone away from the manufacture of cheese; east of Toronto is where 90 per cent of it is produced. But since November and until Saturday, which was the end of March, we have had trucks that were hauling milk from St. Claire, Quebec, which is 25 miles west of Quebec City. In other words, so that you will understand it clearly, it is like leaving the Ontario-Quebec border at the east end of my riding, right at the border, coming to Toronto, and going back every day, trucking milk; and yet we have people with no quota. The plants are operating at 30 per cent of capacity in order to supply the chain-store outlets here or lose that market during winter months.

That has been the situation for the last two years, and that is what is important. We have dropped 16.2 per cent in the production of cheddar cheese; Quebec’s production has increased by 15 per cent in 1977 and 1978. I heard the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) talk about the hog-raising business. What he said was very true. It may be true the farmers who wanted to go into dairy herds were given cheap money during those years to increase. I am not denying that at all, but when a rule is made and we agree to that on a national basis, on a percentage, what I want is a fair deal for the people I represent.

I am concerned. Mr. Speaker, let me give you a few figures. In 1966 when the marketing board took over, we had 16,221 producers in Ontario. Today we have 12,254 a decrease of over 24 per cent.

Mr. Nixon: How much more milk?

Mr. Villeneuve: Just a minute. In Quebec in 1966 they had 12,987 producers; today they have 24,984, an increase of 94.4 per cent.

Mr. Nixon: They had a Liberal government down there most of the time.

Mr. Villeneuve: Very true, and they had a Liberal government that was looking after their friends in Ottawa as well, if you want to be political.

Mr. Nixon: The federal Liberals thought we wanted atomic plants.

Mr. Hennessy: That’s your boss. Don’t talk about your boss.

Mr. Villeneuve: Let’s give the facts. I am going to give a few facts the member is not going to like. This milk subsidy is a wonderful thing to the milk producers of Ontario. Nobody is going to deny it. But let me tell you this: Of the $1,331,333,000 that was expended from 1971 to 1977, over 50 per cent of that -- in other words $667,973,000 -- went to Quebec.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Typical.

Mr. Villeneuve: I just want the members to know that. It is over 50 per cent. Ontario received $426,886,000 which is 32 per cent. According to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck), our percentage of payment in the form of taxation in one way or another to the federal government is 42 cents on every dollar. If you figured out the whole volume it cost Ontario $130,000,000 more to receive that amount of money in that period of six years than we got out of it. So that is how it works there.

Butter: Quebec has averaged 130,000,000 pounds of butter per year. The consumption is roughly around 10 pounds per capita. They have 6,250,000 people, so the members can figure where the surplus has gone: to the Canadian Dairy Commission. Ontario averaged 78,000,000 pounds of butter per year. At 8,300,000 people, we are still importing butter. We still have two million more people to feed than Quebec.

It is interesting to note that over 80 per cent of the butter and skim milk powder purchased by the Canadian Dairy Commission in seven years was produced in one province, Quebec. All we are asking for is a little fairer deal for our people who can supply the milk, taking into consideration population and the market needs of our own province. After all, surely a farmer is entitled on a fair and equal basis to have a right to market his product on his own market. That is being denied the industrial shippers of eastern Ontario.

In 1976-77 and 1977-78, when Mr. Choquette appeared on the scene --

Mr. Rowe: The villain.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- of the skim milk offered to the Canadian Dairy Commission, of the total of 239,100,000 pounds, 81.4 per cent was produced in Quebec in 1976-77. In 1977-78 the total Canadian production was 237,000,000 pounds of skim milk powder; the portion of percentage that was sold to the Canadian Dairy Commission was 82.5 per cent from Quebec.

[5:45]

When we have establishments that have to go to northwestern Quebec to buy plants to supply the market in case they lose it here in Ontario, and we cut down the production of cheese by 15 per cent because there is no milk allotted for it, something is wrong.

I am not trying to denounce the other fellow for getting everything he can, but I like to see fairness. An Anglo-Saxon couldn’t get up and say what I am saying, because they would say over there that he was a bigot, but I will say it, because I am representing the people in my area. It doesn’t matter whether it is a Frenchman, Scotsman or Englishman; when he hasn’t got the dollars in his pocket, that’s a different story. He is quite all right, and willing to go along, but he doesn’t want the other fellow with his hand in his pocket all the time.

I could talk about the DREE program, but I am not going to bother about that, because we will have an occasion, perhaps, shortly.

Mr. Gaunt: Go ahead.

Mr. Villeneuve: Well, if you want it, I’ll tell you. Last year over $160,000,000 was spent in Quebec and $25,000,000 in Ontario. What is it going to be this year? Perhaps I shouldn’t say that; the agreement is not signed yet. They have cancelled ARDA. We are hoping to have the agreement signed for drainage and so forth, which we need.

Mr. Nixon: Look at all the federal dollars in our atomic program.

Mr. Villeneuve: But here’s something that’s worthwhile looking at. The reason I say that is that we have industrial shippers, and so have Huron, Perth, Grey and Oxford.

Mr. Nixon: Concrete mausoleums.

Mr. Villeneuve: Those are the counties that are adversely affected with pool two shippers, as we call them. But I have one message for the milk marketing board: It now has control, with pool one, of 85 per cent of the total production of milk. Take the whole family into pool one, and see that they all get fair treatment, that the poor do not get the crumbs, that they are all treated alike -- provided they produce the right kind of product. They are equipped to do that.

This is very interesting: the total consumption of dairy products in terms of milk has declined by 22.6 per cent, comparing the five-year average for 1972-76 to that of 1952-56. This decline has been primarily the result of steady decrease in apparent consumption of fluid milk, which was more than 30 per cent less per capita in 1976 than in 1952.

I have no fault to find with those well-established farmers who have enjoyed that market and produced. But they are living in an ivory tower. Nobody can get into that market unless there is a shortage, nobody in this province. They are protected. They also produce industrial milk, and almost 60 per cent of the milk they produce in pool one fluid is skimmed down to two per cent or skim milk, which causes another 4,900,000 pounds of butterfat that is taken from the industrial shipper in the members’ areas and in mine.

The result is that of the 2,200 or thereabouts -- 2,179, I believe -- of pool two, according to the last figures, in terms of quota that means 60,000 pounds MSG apiece. Let me tell the House, there are a lot of farms in my area where, although it wouldn’t solve their problem, it would resolve a lot of their financial burden if they were only given that opportunity to increase quota.

I repeat, with factories that are operating at 30 per cent, hauling milk with a roundabout as far away as 580 miles, and farmers who cannot sell it and these trucks going by their door -- something is wrong. I do not blame the Canadian Dairy Commission altogether for it. The milk marketing board has performed a very wonderful service in general for the dairy herds and the dairy farmers of Ontario. But they did not do the job for the industrial shipper that could have been done. I will go that far.

I read this: “The per capita volume of fluid skim milk apparently consumed in 1975-76 was about eight per cent of the volume of partly skimmed milk. Per capita consumption of skim milk powder has remained relatively stable over 25 years. The five-year average is varying between four and a half to seven and a half pounds per person.

“On the other hand, some dairy products have shown trends towards increase in apparent consumption over the 25-year period. Per capita disappearance of both cheddar and process cheese has increased 140 per cent.”

Based on the five-year averages for 1972-76 compared to 1952-56, we are allowing that industry to go down the drain. I do not blame the people of Quebec. They are building a plant that will process as much as 50,000,000 pounds of process cheese. In Ontario last year we had six applications for renovations to already existing plants or permits to build new ones. They were turned down, every single one of them, because there wasn’t a sufficient supply of milk to go around.

I can only say we want justice; fair treatment. That is all we are asking for.

In 1976, cheddar, apart from that used as an ingredient in the manufacture of other food products, constituted 23 per cent of the total cheese consumed, and process cheese about 39 per cent. The remainder was under other varieties of cheese made from whole milk and creamed cottage cheese. Although relatively small in amount consumed, it has shown a generally steady increase over the past 25 years. Ice cream also has shown a generally increasing consumption trend over the years, although consumption appears to have stabilized at about two and three quarter gallons per person annually during the most recent years.

I know a number of young farmers who have taken over their farms from their fathers. We force them to become modern, to renovate their buildings. The result has been that they have thrown away the cans to meet the requirements -- which is good; it is producing a better-quality product. But instead of $15,000 when they bought modern milking equipment and got the milk house built and they had a contractor come in to make an estimate on modernizing the barn, nine times out of ten he told them to forget about renovating the old buildings and to build a new barn.

They talked to their bankers and their bankers said, “Go and see the Farm Credit Corporation about this. You are milking 30 cows; they’re the people to deal with.” In good faith the Farm Credit Corporation agent came out and said, “If you want a viable operation you should try to increase your herd to 50 cows,” which was sensible. But he has ended up with $70,000 to $75,000 of a mortgage yoked around his neck. His father was perhaps old-fashioned, careful, shrewd, did not want to go in debt, but told the boy, “If you want to take it over, take it over.”

These people have got a quota of 200,000 pounds. Some of them have 225,000 pounds as their quota. They are begging to try to get more. They can produce more. They can grow all the feed they need in order to try to meet those obligations. We need the products right here in our home market, yet they’re denied the opportunity to produce. We’ve gone down 24 per cent in total numbers in the last 16 years in milk producers. We’re not producing the amount of milk we did then, but we didn’t drop according to the numbers because, as the members know, there are better herds and there’s better management.

Mr. Nixon: More water.

Mr. Villeneuve: There’s more money coming in. Let’s admit the truth. They’re feeding better and getting more production. Nevertheless, they’re the people for whom I feel sorry. The well-established farmer who’s been going on for years never had it better. Let’s admit the truth.

I talked to a beef cow man the other day -- it wasn’t a beef man -- who sent a holstein cow to Montreal and came back with over $1,150. He didn’t know what to do with the money. He didn’t need it too badly. That’s generally always the way.

Mr. Nixon: He could save it to pay taxes.

Mr. Villeneuve: He didn’t need it too badly, not compared to some.

We all know, in fairness, those days are not going to last forever. The market is here now. These people have the opportunity, if given a reasonable increased amount of milk quota, which I believe in all justice and fairness they deserve because the product is sold here.

The situation is this: I spoke to an exporter two weeks ago and he told me if they had aged cheese, which they haven’t got, they could sell 1,000,000 pounds to Britain. It’s not to be had in Ontario. They were told in Ottawa to go to Quebec. They said, “We want Ontario cheese.” Our name has been established there since before I was born for producing top-quality cheese, yet this is what’s happening. That’s sad enough, but I repeat, we have not got a system working that gives a man who’s trying to meet his obligations and is willing to produce the milk a chance. The processors are crying for it, and hauling milk in that’s costing them $3 more per 100 pounds by the time the transportation is paid than it would have cost them to buy it here from the milk marketing board. A revision has got to be made. I say the responsibility is with the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to represent the industrial end of the dairy industry as well as those who enjoy the fluid milk market.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.