Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, in the east gallery we have guests from the fine city of Windsor and the great riding of Windsor-Walkerville.

An hon. member: Good! Good!

Mr. B. Newman: They are the first school to visit the fourth session of this Parliament. They are 55 fine students from grades 7 and 8 of the Ada C. Richards School, who are accompanied by their principal, Mr. Pyke; two members of the staff, Mr. Noble and Mr. Thompson; and two parents, Mrs. Baia and Mrs. Shelson. I know, Mr. Speaker, the Legislature extends them a cordial welcome.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker --

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to you, also in the east gallery, the fourth such delegation that has appeared here in this Legislature from the great city of Thunder Bay, the grade 8 students, 75 in number, from the Westmount Public School in the south ward of the city of Thunder Bay.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a good deal of pleasure to welcome, from the riding of Sudbury East, some 33 students from Ecole St. Matthieu, a bilingual school from that great riding -- I reiterate, that great riding -- of Sudbury East.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): And its great member.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ROUTE OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, when the government of Canada announced that a pipeline would be necessary to move petroleum products to Quebec and the eastern markets, it stated its intention to build a pipeline across southern Ontario from Sarnia to Montreal.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Who won?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Several ministers have quite properly expressed legitimate concerns over the possible --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): They gave in.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- adverse effects that such construction would have, particularly on the high quality agricultural lands that would be in the path of the pipeline. They have been joined by a number of concerned groups of citizens, and at least two federal cabinet ministers. The consensus of these concerned ministers, groups and individuals was that the pipeline should more properly be built across a more northern route from Sault Ste. Marie to the Chalk River area and thence through Quebec to Montreal.

Since the ultimate responsibility for the construction of the line rests in Ottawa, we have pressed the government of Canada, the National Energy Board and the Interprovincial Pipeline Co. for information on these two alternative routes. Within the last two weeks, we have been able to obtain more complete information on these possible routes, which clarifies why the federal government has decided on a southern route from Sarnia to Montreal.

Mr. Cassidy: This government gave in.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These reasons include costs, potential reversibility of oil flow, and timing in terms of the urgent need for delivery of oil to Montreal and eastern Canada.

On the last point, the most optimistic estimate of the federal government indicates that a northern route cannot be in operation before two years, and therefore no crude oil could flow through the line to Montreal before the 1976-1977 heating season. On the other hand, we have been led to believe by the government of Canada that if the southern route is undertaken, crude oil will be flowing to the east by the 1975-1976 heating season.

I am tabling a fact sheet in connection with this statement which sets forth concisely the relative merits of both pipeline alignments, an analysis of which tends to justify the decision of the federal government. I might add here that we would support the federal government in its ultimate national goal of an all-Canadian pipeline.

This does not mean, however, that we have abandoned the concerns which prompted us to question the southern route in the first place.

Mr. Cassidy: And we’ll table the facts.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are concerned with environmental impacts in general --

Mr. Martel: Stop the flow of oil.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and particularly with the disruption of food-producing lands in southern Ontario.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): I guess the Wafflers are with the government now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We realize the southern route will cause much greater inconvenience and dislocation to citizens and to personal property than the northern route. Our greatest concern is the potential losses of agricultural production along the rights of way.

Mr. Roy: How many acres?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We recognize that the pipeline from Sarnia to Port Credit, with the exception of some 10 miles, will be built on existing rights of way. Regardless of whether we are speaking of an existing pipeline right of way or of a right of way to be used in eastern Ontario, we do not accept the proposition that this can be accomplished without disruption to adjacent property.

The casual observer may not be aware of the inconvenience which such construction brings to property owners in terms of fence removal, drainage disruptions, soil compaction, loss of food production during the construction period, reduced production in succeeding years and other factors. It is true that compensation is provided, but it is difficult to compensate in dollars for disruptions, many of which may not become apparent for months and even years after the actual construction period.

Ontario farmers are concerned about this. We have had discussions with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture relating to these difficulties and I want to make it clear that the Federation of Agriculture is quite objective about the need for this utility. However, they are insistent that such matters as fair compensation, and the protection of individual rights be assured.

These requests are valid, and we intend to intervene at the National Energy Board hearings for assurance, among other things, that competent inspectors be provided along the pipeline route to ensure that the concerns of property owners are met.

We have noted in recent decisions emanating from the National Energy Board on pipeline construction in western Canada that environmental concerns, including agriculture, are to be given much greater attention in the future than has been the case in the past. We are encouraged by this new position of the National Energy Board and have submitted to the board for its consideration environmental guidelines for pipeline construction and maintenance.

Mr. Cassidy: The government had better convince the farmers first that the southern route is necessary.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These guidelines, which I am also tabling with this statement, are those currently being followed by the Ontario Energy Board for those pipelines which are under its jurisdiction.

Energy is a vital need in these critical times, second only to our continuing dependence on food. Of all the material things which man utilizes these two are by far the most important. We want the citizens of Ontario -- indeed of all Canada -- to know that Ontario’s priorities will recognize these needs. We intend to maximize the food production potential in Ontario and we intend to seek security of energy supplies within a national context while paying due regard to the environment. We shall do everything in our power, therefore, to ensure that the construction of an oil pipeline through southern Ontario not conflict with our goals.

Mr. Roy: Did the minister prepare that or was it his predecessor, the member for Carleton East (Mr. Lawrence)?

Mr. Cassidy: He surely went to somebody on that one.

ARBITRATION BOARD FOR CAAT DISPUTE

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, in order that members of the House will have a better understanding of the events which led up to the current situation, I would like to reply at some length to the question asked on March 6 by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren).

As the members of the House will recall, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Act which sets out the bargaining procedures for Crown employees, came into force on Dec. 29, 1972. The Act provides that where the parties are unable to effect an agreement the matters in dispute shall be decided by arbitration, and also provides in section 10(1) that:

“A person shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for a renewable term of two years to be the chairman of every board of arbitration established under this Act.”

The members may be interested in knowing that under the Act which governs federal public servants the chairman of the arbitration tribunal is appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during good behaviour for such term, not exceeding seven years, as may be determined by the Governor in Council.

Mr. Cassidy: Civil servants have the right to strike in Ottawa but they haven’t got it here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: His Honour Judge J. C. Anderson of Belleville, Ontario, whose experience in labour relations arbitration matters in both public and private jurisdiction covers a period of more than 30 years and who is generally regarded by unions and employers alike as an extremely competent and impartial adjudicator, was appointed as chairman of the Public Service Arbitration Board for the two-year period from Jan. 1, 1973, to Dec. 31, 1974.

The members will recall that Judge Anderson had performed a similar service for the public service of Ontario since his first appointment under the Public Service Act as early as 1964. His most recent appointment was discussed with and was acceptable to the bargaining agents which represent Crown employees.

It is acknowledged there is an honest difference of opinion as to the merits of ad hoc arbitration as opposed to the system where the chairman is appointed for a fixed term. But it is the very firm view of this government, and obviously the view of the federal government as well, that a chairman appointed for a fixed term who has an opportunity to become familiar with the issues that the parties bring before him is able to issue more satisfactory awards than a series of chairmen who may never be exposed to the problems more than once.

Mr. Cassidy: There is no forced arbitration in Ottawa. It is chosen.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Meetings for the purpose of renewing the agreement in effect for the academic staff of the colleges of applied arts and technology began in May, 1973. The Civil Service Association of Ontario and the faculty members of the bargaining team for the colleges were certainly aware that if any impasse were reached the matters in dispute would be referred to arbitration. They also would have known that the chairman of the arbitration board would be Judge Anderson.

The members of the government find it extremely difficult to understand why a small group of faculty members waited until this late date to challenge the makeup of the board --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): They don’t like compulsory arbitration.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- which, as I said earlier, is established by an Act of this parliament.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They shouldn’t be subjected to it either.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It is the feeling of this government that the Province of Ontario has been extremely fortunate in acquiring the services of a chairman with the experience and stature of Judge Anderson, and it is highly regrettable that his capacity to act in a completely impartial manner should be questioned in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the government is completely satisfied with the manner in which the Public Service Arbitration Board is constituted. There is no doubt in the minds of the members of the government that the vast majority of the members of the academic staff of the community colleges are prepared to abide by the laws of this province and will not condone the actions of those few who are prepared to flaunt the law in an attempt to force the government to give in to their demands.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): It is a bad law.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Is picketing against the law?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We trust that the Civil Service Association of Ontario, the bargaining representative of the employees involved, will accept its responsibilities to proceed with the arbitration hearings without delay.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): This doesn’t help.

Mr. Laughren: The minister has just polarized it.

Mr. Deans: It’s too weak.

ANGLO-CANADIAN PULP AND PAPER EXPANSION IN NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech there was some reference to northern Ontario and I was interested in some of the observations about certain visions. I don’t often comment on cartoons in papers but there was one in this morning’s Globe and Mail, and I hope there are some representatives from that paper here today.

Mr. Lewis: There always are.

Mr. Martel: The Premier really worries about the Globe, doesn’t he?

Mr. Lewis: The rest of the press can rest their pens.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let the Premier tell us about his pulp mill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When they showed the great activity that one was envisaging for the north, they somehow neglected that part of the Throne Speech referring to billboards or there would have been fewer billboards in the cartoon itself.

I think it is fair to state that the economic development of the north will not be predicated on that sort of thing.

Mr. Martel: Not on that Throne Speech either.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): It won’t be predicated on that Throne Speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, in order to give some practical reality to what was said just two days ago, or within 48 hours, I wish to inform the members that the board of directors of Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. has given approval to the first phase of a plan to create two modern integrated forest product complexes in northwestern Ontario, and has authorized extensive feasibility studies for a second phase.

The first phase will involve increasing the company’s sawmilling capacity from 34 million to 225 million board feet per annum by constructing sawmills at Dryden and in the Red Lake area. It will involve the installation of additional modern effluent control systems at the Dryden kraft mill, and the modernization and expansion of the Dryden kraft mill from 630 to 750 tons per day.

By late 1975 the new sawmilling capacity will be phased in, as will the installation of a new effluent treatment system. The expansion of the Dryden mill is scheduled to come on stream in mid-1976.

The first phase of this new programme will involve the expenditure of about $63 million.

Last week the company announced the construction of a $2.5 million chloralkali plant at Dryden, using new non-mercury technology; this will meet the objectives of the Ministry of the Environment.

A second phase, involving an investment of $190 million, would mean the construction of a second integrated forest products complex in the Red Lake area. If the preliminary studies are confirmed it would result in the construction of a 900-ton-per-day kraft pulp mill operating exclusively on sawdust, chips and fines from the company’s sawmills. In addition, during this second phase, the company would expand its sawmilling operations again, this time from 225 million to 500 million board feet a year.

The company is also studying the feasibility of including a fibreboard plant and a speciality chemical plant.

As part of phase two, the company has pledged a $500,000 performance bond to the government of Ontario in connection with its proposal to expand its existing timber limits for this phase with the understanding that construction must begin by December, 1976.

If all projects prove feasible and are proceeded with there would be a total investment of $253 million resulting in approximately 1,800 new jobs by 1978 in the pulp mills, in the sawmills and in the woodlands. This would be double the number of people the company now employs in northwestern Ontario.

The government intends to ensure that sufficient serviced housing lots are made available in the communities affected.

These projects are consistent with the growth objectives outlined by the government’s Design for Development, northwestern Ontario region report. As members will recall, that report called for the creation of 4,000 to 5,000 new jobs in the pulp and paper industry in northwestern Ontario over the next 20 years. Today’s announcement, coupled with the announcement I made a few months ago with regard to the Great Lakes Paper Co.’s expansion plans, puts the achievement of that target well within reach.

Close co-operation between Anglo-Canadian and the Ontario government will be maintained to ensure that all necessary efforts are made to protect the environment.

I am sure all members of this House join me in welcoming this announcement, the results of which will bring a significant boost to the economy of the province, especially to the north.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions; the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ANGLO-CANADIAN PULP AND PAPER EXPANSION IN NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Further to the Premier’s statement, isn’t it true that Anglo-Canadian, which owns Dryden Paper, was responsible, through pollution, for completely destroying the game fishing in the Wabigoon River system and the English River system to such an extent that it can never be restored? Were they not under government supervision as far as environmental effects are concerned during those days as well?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Brant this government lives in the future, not in the past. This announcement makes it very clear --

Interjections by hon, members.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The Premier has five ministers who were, formerly.

Mr. Roy: The Premier has a short memory when it comes to problems.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This announcement makes it very clear that all future expansion plans of Anglo-Canadian will meet the environmental requirements of this government. While the member for Brant may wish to be derogatory about that particular company, we are very optimistic --

Mr. Breithaupt: Promise never to do it again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as to what it will achieve for employment and the general economic development of northwestern Ontario; and we are encouraged by their activity.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: In connection with this tremendous investment of dollars in this expansion, which is obviously for the good of the north, can the Premier indicate to the House what steps are being taken to clean up the mess that was left there by the industry in the past?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been debated. As I said in this particular statement, the company has already announced, and it is part of their planned programme for Dryden, that the mercury part of whatever the process was some time ago is to be completely removed. There wall be just no mercury pollution in their operation.

Mr. Roy: What about the damage done in the past? Answer the question.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Can’t stand progress.

Mr. Lewis: I wanted to ask a supplementary question. It is Mr. Jones who is involved in Anglo-Canadian. As I recall he is one of the chief executive officers. Is he also a senior adviser, perhaps chairman of the advisory committee to the Minister of Natural Resources?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): No.

Mr. Lewis: He is not an adviser to the Minister of Natural Resources?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): He is on the committee.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He stepped down last November.

Mr. Lewis: He stepped down in November? That answers my question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, that’s what I wanted. All right.

An hon. member: He got what he wanted.

Mr. Deans: Just before the arrangement was concluded.

An hon. member: What is the member’s point?

Mr. Lewis: I just wanted to know.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. In line with the very proper concern, a new concern, for the protection of class 1 and 2 arable land, is he now prepared to follow up on what was a partial commitment given by the Premier yesterday in requiring that the expropriation hearings with regard to the hydro lines in the western part of the province be stood down, pending an objective assessment as to other locations for the line which would use only half as much class 1 and 2 land? Would the minister not indicate as much concern for projects under provincial jurisdiction as he very rightly shows for projects in the province under federal jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Speaker, quite properly I think that question should be directed to the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough). I’m doing my best to stay within the terms of reference of a policy secretary. That is to co-ordinate matters which overlap various ministries.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Oh, that is what the terms of reference are.

Mr. Cassidy: He will meet the fate of the member for Carleton East.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This specific matter is one in which my colleague, the Minister of Energy, I’m sure would be glad --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: He will wither away before our eyes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do the members want information or don’t they? If they want the information, that’s where it belongs.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Does the member want an answer?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, if I may. The minister is fully experienced in these matters, wouldn’t he agree that the statement he made with remark to the protection of class 1 and 2 land with regard to the pipeline intrusion would in fact cover the hydro line, the Arnprior dam, the new town in Pickering and other provincial programmes which must surely be covered by the same umbrella of policy and not subject to the whim of the Minister of Energy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know why the hon. Leader of the Opposition makes such an issue of it.

Mr. Roy: It is important.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member wants the information, and I’m directing him to the minister who would have, in my view and the government’s view, that specific information --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the provincial secretary going to be just like Allan Lawrence and have nothing to say about policy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- why not get to the point as quickly as possible? I tell the member that that is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, because the member has asked a specific question --

Mr. Roy: If he keeps it up he will be fired. He will be fired just like the member for Carleton East.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just a signpost.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- which relates to his ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to redirect a question to the Minister of Energy, with your permission, sir.

Mr. Lewis: About time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Could have saved three minutes because he has been ready.

Mr. Roy: They will make a seat for the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick next to the member for Carleton East.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that yesterday we were dealing with three different hydro lines. Perhaps to put them in context we’ve talked about the Pickering to Nanticoke line, which I think --

An hon. member: At length.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- as the Premier said yesterday --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s the one that goes through Peel.

Mr. Singer: It just happens to be the riding he represents.

An hon. member: And Halton, and Brampton.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- could be considered to be under some sort of an environmental impact review process at the present moment with Dr. Solandt, and we await that report.

The second series of lines which was talked about yesterday was from the Bradley junction, which is near Bruce, to Georgetown. In that particular instance, selection of the correct route -- or the Tightest route, or the least damaging route, depending upon your point of view I suppose -- is going through the process. Hydro have undertaken a large-scale programme, which I may say is unprecedented in North America in terms of trying to involve the public --

Mr. Singer: Naturally.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- in that kind of decision-making process.

Mr. Breithaupt: Another one of those.

Mr. Singer: Or in the world -- the western world.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It will be, I think, some months before Hydro, through that process, comes to some conclusions. After that it will report its conclusions to the government and the government at that point will decide whether it is necessary to have some further environmental hearing a la Dr. Solandt or not. If there is obviously an environmental hearing board fully empowered at that point, then that would presumably be the route we would go rather than a royal commission under Dr. Solandt.

What the member was talking about yesterday, and what I assume he is referring to today, is a 50-mile stretch of line from the Bradley junction to Seaforth, which line was selected as early as 1969 and which it is crucial to have in place, as I understand it, for the opening of the first unit at Bruce, which should take place -- if it is on schedule, and we have no reason to think that it won’t be -- in July of 1975, barely 14 months from now.

Hydro went through what they then thought was a form of public participation and which for many, many years was thought to have been adequate -- although I think events have proven otherwise. This has been the route up to this point and they are now down to the point where it is necessary to expropriate some remaining properties.

There are three different routes that we are talking about and there are others in the province which are in various stages. Obviously, the announcement in the Speech from the Throne concerning environmental impact and giving that authority to someone, depending on the disposition of the green paper, cannot be retroactive. The world can’t stop and turn the clock back, three and four and five years in some instances.

Nevertheless, having said that, the good farmers of that particular area in Bruce were in to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and his officials -- brought in, I think, in part by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) -- and they met with them. The Minister of Agriculture and Food arranged for those farmers to meet with the resources policy field and they did, I think three weeks ago today. Subsequently, a meeting has been held by the resources policy field with Ontario Hydro, with other government ministries and with concerned agencies of the government.

The matter is under review, and hopefully within the next two or three weeks some definite position can be attained with regard to the position of the farmers and the route of that Hydro line. But we are not in a position to say what the ultimate disposition of the review will be at this moment.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Cassidy: Since the other question related also to the Arnprior project, which is also affecting farm land and farmers, does the minister consider that there was an adequate environmental study and there was adequate information provided to local residents; or whether there was adequate public participation in the choice of that particular project and the way it was to be built? And if not, what will he do about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was the subject of an exhaustive review. Obviously the member from Ottawa doesn’t think so and we might debate that at some other time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister. In relation to the Huron-Bruce power line, since this matter is now under review, would the minister undertake to talk to Ontario Hydro with respect to the rate of compensation for the farmers in that hydro line corridor, particularly in view of the fact that Ontario Hydro has been offering rates which are 50 to 75 per cent of current market value, as opposed to the rates being offered for the pipeline, which I understand are about 150 per cent of current market value?

Mr. Roy: A difference in government, I guess.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that it would be proper for me to talk to Hydro about individual properties. I think the member might well wish to speak about specifics to the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Evans), who is a member of the Hydro board of directors. I can only say this: In various situations which I have looked at from time to time, Hydro have had the benefit of outside appraisals. They have had the benefit of outside appraisals, for example, at Arnprior, and in that instance, I think, in one out of something like 12 properties the outside appraisal was higher than the offer which Hydro had made. I think in 11 cases the Hydro offer was higher than the outside appraisal, in some cases substantially higher.

I recognize that if my property were being taken, or if I were going to sell a piece of property, I would have a very high view or a very inflated view -- inflated might be better than high, I think -- that view might be something higher than Hydro are prepared to offer.

Hydro are in the position, of course, of attempting to provide power at cost to the people of Ontario. To do that, they have to not only provide fair prices but prices which are commensurate with market value. And if farmers or land owners anywhere in the province feel aggrieved and that they are not receiving a sufficient price, then we have in this province, thanks to the foresight of this government, one of the finest pieces of expropriation legislation that will be found anywhere.

Mr. Breithaupt: Certainly in the eastern hemisphere!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have a Land Compensation Board which will deal adequately and fairly with those being expropriated, and in the public interest as well; and I put my faith there.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: In view of the fact that the farmers and others who have looked into the Arnprior project are not satisfied about the exhaustive review referred to by the minister, will the minister undertake to table soon in the House all of the relevant documents that underpinned the government’s review, including the engineering feasibility study prepared for the dam, which is now being denied to people who request it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the hon. member could make some of the copies which he has received from Hydro available to his friends.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: If I could have a direct answer to the question, will the minister undertake to table in this House documents referring to the Arnprior dam, which are now being denied to those who requested them directly from Hydro?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, a number of documents have been tabled in the House and certain documents have been given to people who want them, and they are available for inspection. As far as I am concerned, the hon. member has got all he is going to get.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He’s over on the island!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member attempting to get more information?

Mr. Cassidy: No, Mr. Speaker, I am seeking to raise a point of privilege, which I think is quite important, particularly in view of the fact that Ontario Hydro has this week become a Crown corporation that is directly accountable, one assumes, to this House.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. It is running roughshod around Ontario.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): The minister has no right to refuse that information.

Mr. Cassidy: The question of accountability is at stake, it seems to me, when basic information --

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of privilege?

Mr. Cassidy: The privileges of this House, Mr. Speaker, are affected when members of this Legislature are denied information by the ministry and by a Crown corporation responsible to the House, which directly reports to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no privilege that has been abused by the minister; no privilege whatsoever. The hon, member will be seated. There is no point of privilege.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit to you, sir, that there is a point of privilege or order for your consideration. Can a minister, just off the top of his head, deny any further information to a member of this House, particularly when it pertains to a public project?

Mr. Shulman: Only if it is the Minister of Energy. There is another embarrassment. They always do it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that should give you some personal concern.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition is familiar with the provisions pertaining to the question period in which the minister may or may not answer. He need not answer a question.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa Centre was seeking information from Ontario Hydro, which is now a Crown corporation responsible to the House --

Mr. Ruston: The member voted for it.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right! And in a vindictive, splenetic outburst, typical of the minister, he personally denies access. Well, that destroys Hydro’s accountability, and that is a point of privilege in the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It comes from out of his hip pocket.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, surely it is not the right of a minister --

Mr. Ruston: Listen to who is talking! The speculator.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The number one capitalist over there.

Mr. Shulman: -- of an arrogant minister, to come in here and tell the members of this House they cannot get information on matters which are directly our responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: When we take power well nationalize Hydro.

Mr. Roy: Don’t hold your breath!

Mr. Speaker: Order please, I’m not at all certain of the precise words used by the hon, minister.

Mr. Martel: Oh, come on! You heard what he said.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not at all certain of the precise words used by the hon. minister. I’ll undertake to review Hansard, and if, in fact. there is any way in which I can see that the question period has been abused I will certainly take further action. But as far as I am concerned there has been no misuse of the question period on the part of the minister. He need not reply to any question and he may reply in any manner ne sees fit.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Throw him in the tower.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Which one?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: The point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is not the question about the use or misuse of the question period. It is the question of the privileges of members of this House --

Mr. Shulman: Right!

Mr. Cassidy: -- in receiving information from ministers.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I’ve ruled on that. My ruling is not debatable. The hon. member for Brant.

PROSECUTION OF DENTURISTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Attorney General how he decides which denturists are going to be raided and then charged and brought before the courts; because presumably all of the practising denturists are breaking the ridiculous law that was put through the Legislature just a few months ago --

Mr. Shulman: It is done by lot.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- even though the law did not conform to the Attorney General’s stated principle.

An hon. member: Depending on the quality of their character.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, knowing how anxious the Leader of the Opposition is to have this particular matter answered --

Mr. Shulman: We can’t hear.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- I would indicate at this time that he will recall that my predecessor made the position quite clear, that if anyone knew of anyone who was breaking the law with respect to that statute, that if we had that information we would give it to the Crown Attorney having jurisdiction in that area.

Mr. Breithaupt: But which ones does the government put the bite on?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the Attorney General, therefore, charge only the ones that the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), or his predecessor, have brought to his attention; or were there complaints from the community; or, in fact, does the minister know of some denturists practising as denturists who are not breaking the law?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I may repeat, as far as I know now -- but I will be glad to get up-to-date information -- I know of no complaints that have been brought to us, that is to the Attorney General or to the agent of the Attorney General, the Crown attorney in any of the jurisdictions in Ontario. If the Leader of the Opposition has some information which he feels I should have in this regard, I will gladly put it in the hands of the proper court officials.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since he has asked for the information, I would suggest that the information that he seeks lies in the mind of the Minister of Health. The Attorney General should surely advise the Minister of Health that that law must be amended and put back the way the Attorney General had it originally, and then there would be no more problem and the denturists would be able to practise legally. Is that the information the minister was asking for?

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

Mr. Shulman: Can the minister explain why the leaders of the denturists have not been raided? In fact, people like Mr. Sweet have publicly got up and said they’re practising. He’s continuing to practise, and yet he isn’t touched. But the government touches these little people around the province. Is it being done by lot?

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps we’ll get him to streak across the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Does the member mean the hon. member for High Park?

Mr. Shulman: No, the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That would be a real treat if I did.

Mr. Lewis: It will be an apparition, I will tell the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, quite. That would be the reforming AG.

Mr. Speaker, if I could reply to the hon. member for High Park; I really can’t add anything further to the answer I’ve already provided to the hon. Leader of the Opposition other than to restate the position which my predecessor made quite clear in this House, that if anyone has any information with respect to a violation of that particular statute, he should provide it to us.

Mr. Roy: They have a full page ad.

Mr. Cassidy: Look in the yellow pages.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Attorney General could tell us what steps he is taking to protect the rights of innocent people who happen to be visiting denturists when the high-jackbooted police come in? The rights of these people are being severely --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Braithwaite: Shut up! I’m asking a question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It is a novelty all right.

Mr. Braithwaite: That’s nice. The rights of these people are being severely restricted when the police come in.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Braithwaite: Could the Attorney General state what he’s doing to protect these people?

An hon. member: Are they found-ins?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any specific information in this regard, the Attorney General would like to have it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, a specific case in my particular riding has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Health in the past, and there has been more than one case of this. The Attorney General must know of these cases. I don’t have to give him further information.

Mr. Breithaupt: Read the papers.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary pursuant to this question?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you may.

Mr. Roy: Could the Attorney General tell us about the legality of the full page ad on the government’s dental plan? In light of the fact that the denturists themselves as a profession or as individuals cannot advertise legally, does the Attorney General not feel that he is breaching their ethics by using public funds to advertise for them? Could he tell us about the legality of these acts, which is propaganda for the dentists at public expense?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, reference is being made to an advertisement inserted by the Ministry of Health. I would suggest that the Ministry of Health is in itself not violating any particular law in advertising that particular programme.

Mr. Lewis: Yes; it is inappropriate, but it is probably not illegal.

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

The hon. member for Scarborough West.

ROUTE OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask the Minister of Energy a question, Mr. Speaker? Last Saturday he indicated: “From a cold, calculated, hard-nosed point of view, the pipeline should not be built until at least 1990”; and on Thursday the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development made the announcement. Can he explain his view?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was not cold-blooded.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, as so often happens, one is sometimes misquoted --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- or one is sometimes not quoted in full. I think the words that I used were quoted correctly, but I also said some other things. I said nothing about 1990. What I said was that from a cold, calculating, completely business-like point of view --

Mr. Roy: Hard-nosed.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Hard-headed.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hard-nosed. Did I say that?

I said it might make sense to defer the decision until such time as it was clear how much oil was going to be available from conventional sources in western Canada and how much oil might be available from the east coast, and then decide whether the line would be built as a reversible line.

Having said that, I also said, and have said on a number of occasions, that from the point of view of security of supply of the Maritimes, from the point of view of the security of supply of the Province of Quebec, and from the point of view of the security of supply of about 800,000 people in Ontario who live east of the border line, it is imperative that we get on with that pipeline and get it built as quickly as possible.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: In the light of the minister’s reference about 800,000 people living on the other side of this line, what pressure has the minister brought on the oil companies that are presently supplying oil to the Ottawa area from the west through this Kingston pipeline and, because of the cheaper price from the west, stand to make profits of something like $1 million?

What pressure has he brought on these companies so that they will give us the oil in Ottawa at the same price as people get it here in Toronto, plus the cost of transportation? Has he brought any pressure on the companies to give the benefit of this cheap oil from the west to the consumers and not to the companies?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not, because since last fall both gasoline and heating oil sold east of the Ottawa Valley line has been, in effect, under a price freeze imposed by the government of Canada and administered by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. And if any oil company is making an exorbitant profit on sales east of the line, then I would suggest that the hon. member should talk to his federal friends and point that out, because in effect the federal minister is controlling the price.

Mr. Roy: I have.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And if he’s allowing them exorbitant profits, then the hon. member should hang his head in shame.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the fact that this problem has been brought to the minister’s attention, will he undertake to bring it to the federal minister’s attention? Will he put pressure on him? This minister is a pretty hard-nosed guy. Go after him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing of federal politics --

An hon. member: It runs in the family.

Interjections by hon. members.

MAPLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

When is the minister releasing all of the feasibility studies and documents related to the proposed Maple Mountain project in northeastern Ontario?

Mr. Laughren: Good question.

Mr. Foulds: And why?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to release those reports as soon as I have reported to cabinet on the full facts and the meanings of the report. We have had input from some of the people in the various ministries whom we have asked to comment on them. That should be, likely, within the next 10 days.

Mr. Lewis: Within the next 10 days?

A further question: When the minister submits those reports can he indicate to the House the effect of the title claims which have been registered by the Indian band against all of the property within which Maple Mountain falls and the possible legal implications of that from the point of view of the government?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that can be included in the reports at the time we bring them to the House for the simple reason it will take some period of time to look at the validity of the claims placed before the government. I have asked the Attorney General and the Minister of Natural Resources to review the situation and to report back to me and, in turn, to cabinet. If it is possible we will include it; if not it will be brought into the House at a later date.

Mr. Lewis: Right; thank you.

HALL LAMP CO.

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Labour. Now that we are into the new year can he tell the House what finally happened to the 600 employees of the Hall Lamp Co.?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, I am sure he is aware by now that we did everything within our power to collect from the Hall Lamp Co. every dollar in salaries or wages owed to the employees. We have done this; also any amount owing to them with reference to vacation pay. Unfortunately as far as termination pay is concerned we could not get anything from the company.

Mr. Lewis: Not a penny?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: No.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister understand that he was used and manipulated by a private company, a private subsidiary in Ontario, to give voice in this Legislature about a temporary shutdown which was, in fact, permanent from the day it occurred? Therefore, he participated with that company in the denial to 600 people of the rights which he has guaranteed them under legislation and, in the last several weeks, has taken away from them? Can he find some way of avoiding that ever happening again to a large number of people in the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Deans: He was had.

Mr. Lewis: He was had by a company.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, of course, hindsight is much easier than foresight. Nonetheless, we are looking at our legislation to see what we can do in the case of bankruptcy. This is a case of bankruptcy; as members know it is.

Mr. Deans: But the minister was told. Right from day one.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: We were told. We have no control over the Bankruptcy Act.

Mr. Lewis: They didn’t declare bankruptcy for weeks.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: This comes under federal legislation, as members know.

HALL LAMP CO.

Mr. Lewis: For weeks they didn’t declare bankruptcy.

I have a question on that subject of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I take it that, in fact, no loan was granted or is to be granted through the Ontario Development Corp. to reopen the Hall Lamp Co. for other purposes?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House some weeks ago, in the last sitting, there were several firms interested in trying to pick up the pieces of Hall Lamp. Our ministry, through Ontario Development Corp. -- I should say both the ministry and the Ontario Development Corp. met with several firms to discuss the possibility of putting the operation back together. None of them could put up the capital funds required.

I might admit that there were two or three companies which went in and finished off some of the products for which they were waiting for delivery to their plants and they did use part of the labour force for a period of time. But no one at this point has picked up the pieces, because the capital investment is too great and the firms we were talking with did not have the resources to put themselves in that position.

Mr. Lewis: Fair enough. So it was an entire disaster from day one.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it was an entire disaster. We have bankruptcies in this province and on many occasions this government has tried through the Ontario Development Corp. --

Mr. Lewis: It wasn’t a bankruptcy.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- to stabilize the firm to retain and maintain the employment in that particular operation or operations.

Mr. Lewis: The government sure didn’t do it this time.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We tried in every area to secure the position of the firm but it was an impossibility, and it would not have been money well invested by the government of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron with a supplementary.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): A supplementary of the minister: Is he aware that a Canadian firm, along with the former managerial staff of Hall Lamp, submitted a bid which was a very reasonable bid to the receiver, and that the receiver has failed to act on this bid -- and is there anything that the minister can do to speed up the process so that the plant can be reactivated and put back into operation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, there were several firms that were interested in trying to pick up the pieces of Hall Lamp. The one the member speaks of did put in a proposal. It was my understanding, in information given to us by the receiver, that the sums of money put forward by the organization were not sufficient to carry the position.

Now, I can review it again with the receiver and the people in Ontario Development Corp.; but that was the last word that I had had on the Hall Lamp and those that were interested in trying to re-establish it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

ACQUISITION OF LAKE ONTARIO CEMENT PROPERTY

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Can he now tell the House what he has offered for the acquisition of the Lake Ontario Cement property after the expropriation is completed?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the House at the last sitting this matter was being handled by the Land Compensation Board. It comes under the Attorney General’s department. I am informed that an independent appraiser was engaged and on his report the company was offered $150,000 on Jan. 22. The company rejected the offer, but the cheque was delivered to the firm on Feb. 15 and has not been returned.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West has further questions?

FEMALE APPOINTMENTS TO WCB

Mr. Lewis: One very quick question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. The Premier just made a series of appointments and reappointments amounting to five in number to the Workmen’s Compensation Board -- to the highest portion of that board dealing with administration and appeals -- not a single one of which appointments was a woman. Does that reflect the new tenure of the Throne Speech?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I --

An hon. member: Tenure?

Mr. Lewis: Tenor, I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask about tenure. We on this side of the House will make sure the tenure is continued as far as the affairs of this government are concerned.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As far as the tenor of the Throne Speech is concerned, I think what was stated there is not only an obvious fact, but many of the appointments that have been made in recent months would substantiate it.

With respect to the appointments to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, there is not a woman in that particular group. But I can assure the hon. member -- because I know he is interested in women being appointed -- that there are two or three other appointees to be made to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and it is our hope to have a woman as one of those.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

NO-FAULT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Singer: I have a question of the Premier. In view of the Premier’s statement not too long ago that we could expect new no-fault automobile insurance laws in Ontario, and in view of the recent publicity given to a proposal along these lines by the insurance industry, is that the kind of new law that the Premier had in mind? Or in view of the reaction that that proposal has received from portions of the insurance industry -- and certainly from the legal profession and from many members of the public -- would the Premier be prepared to set up a select committee to inquire into this whole problem -- including rates, no-fault principles, the extensions of our law -- so that Ontario might perhaps have a better law than it now has?

Mr. Lewis: Please say no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to establish a select committee on that subject, certainly at this moment. I don’t really recall saying that we are going to have a new no-fault insurance programme. I do recall speaking to a group of insurance people some time ago -- this will upset my friends over here; hopefully not those across the House; certainly not the member from -- well, never mind -- that we did not intend as a government to get into the insurance business.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who is that constituent?

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I made it very clear that we expected the insurance industry to act in a responsible way reflecting the legitimate concerns of the public generally.

Mr. Cassidy: And who gave generously to the Premier’s party -- yes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t recall saying there would be a new no-fault insurance scheme.

Mr. Singer: I’ve got that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think I said that. Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a report. A report was sent to the minister responsible, which has provoked some discussion. I think The Advocates’ Society is one group that has registered some objection.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Haven’t heard of lawyers --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think The Advocates’ Society -- and I don’t quarrel with The Advocates’ Society -- were represented primarily by people in the legal profession --

Mr. Lewis: Boy, were they mad. The loss of clients.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They were upset, weren’t they?

An hon. member: Yes, so was the --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I think their concern, though, was not --

Mr. Singer: They have Tory presidents as members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think in fairness it related to -- and I don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion -- the question of the application of the law of tort.

Mr. Singer: That is an important facet of the discussion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. And I think that is somewhat relevant. I think it is also important to point out --

Mr. Lewis: It should relate a little more to the law of income.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is also important to point out, and I say this to our friends in the socialist group --

Mr. Lewis: Aha!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I know they are trying to become more conservative but they haven’t convinced us yet.

Mr. Lewis: No, no, no.

An hon. member: A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of personal privilege, the Premier has called me many things before but never a socialist and I was pleased to acknowledge it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I used that in the very broad sense of the word. I have used stronger terminology, I must confess. Now, where was I before I was interrupted?

Mr. MacDonald: The Premier interrupted himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was saying I think part of the discussion has also made one point very obvious and I think it needs to be restated in this House. Many people who have referred to this report say that the whole approach taken by the Province of Ontario with respect to automobile insurance happens to be one of the best schemes operating anywhere in the world. Now these are friends of the members opposite who have said this, not me.

Mr. Singer: Are we going to have a committee to study this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I doubt it.

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

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, the hon. member for Ottawa East has a supplementary, which I will permit.

Mr. Roy: Among the proposals of the insurance company criticized by The Advocates’ Society I would like to bring to the Premier’s attention is apparently the right of subrogation by OHIP from the insurance company, which as the government knows is something like $10 million a year. Does the Premier agree with that proposal, which in fact would be the taxpayers subsidizing the insurance company?

Hon. Mr. Davis: To be very frank, I try to take in a lot of information. I will confess to the member that I just haven’t assessed it very carefully personally so I won’t offer any point of view.

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

ROLE OF CHIROPRACTORS

Mr. Shulman: To the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: In view of the statements made by certain chiropractors last week, and reported in the Ottawa Citizen, that they are treating under OHIP asthma and diabetes, what steps has the minister taken? Does he intend to pay claims of this nature? Does he intend to do anything to protect the public?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: If the members could keep it up for two more minutes, question period will be over.

Mr. MacDonald: The honeymoon’s over now, let’s hear it.

Mr. Shulman: The minister hasn’t made a mistake yet.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, the question being asked by the member for High Park is a very good one.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That in itself is a change. However, we are of course looking at the role of the chiropractor and under the Health Disciplines bill this whole question is going to be discussed. I’m not prepared at this time to say what in fact is the scope of practice of a chiropractor and what is not. I can only say that in due -- what is the word?; in the fullness of time? --

An hon. member: He’s going places.

Mr. Ruston: The Premier better turn around.

Mr. Lewis: How come the minister looked at the Premier to find that out?

Mr. Deans: Going to have to sit him the other way so that he can conduct.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- we will in fact be making that determination.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Does that mean that at the present time chiropractors and others -- perhaps podiatrists -- can treat asthma or cancer or diabetes or anything else if they wish and the minister is going to make no limitations at the present time but we’re going to wait for the fullness of time to protect the public?

Mr. Jessiman: He didn’t say that.

An. hon. member: Is the minister going to pay them for that?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I did not say that. I think the member will find that this was one of the major issues in the study of the role of the various components of the health delivery system undertaken a couple of years ago -- the question as to whether in fact the practice of chiropractic permitted the treatment of organic disorders or not. I am quite aware of the position of the medical profession on this. I, as yet, have not tried to reach an opinion on it. I am going to have this information before me when this part comes up and the study is going on now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Is it a fact that there are negotiations taking place with his ministry now to alter the contract with Krauss-Maffei and, if so, what is the nature of these negotiations, and what are the financial implications of these negotiations?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any negotiations going on at this time. I would trust that the hon. members opposite will appreciate the fact that I am going to take some time to understand all of the intricacies of this particular situation.

Mr. Singer: Probably until the session is over, yes.

Mr. Martel: It is going to take some time. Even the Premier doesn’t understand it yet.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answer to a question asked previously.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member for York-Forest Hill, who apparently is going to do this regularly, asked a question yesterday:

“Would the Minister of Transportation and Communications explain why there has been delay in the awarding of the guideway in the station contracts of the Krauss-Maffei experiment in the CNE which were promised for December and January?”

First of all, Mr. Speaker, we do not accept that there has been a delay. The construction of the guideway at the CNE is being accomplished by the developer under several separate subcontracts. The first operation, after the design advanced to the point that column locations were known, was to relocate the existing utilities. This relocation work was done, partly by subcontract and partly by the utility companies involved. The tenders for the utility relocation subcontract closed Dec. 12, 1973, and this work is now completed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The man of the year said they would be let in October.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The second operation was the installation of the column foundations. The tenders for the subcontract closed on Nov. 7, 1973, and this work is approximately 50 per cent completed, with 221 caissons completed of 481 caissons required, and will be completed about May 1.

The third operation is the construction and erection of the columns and beams. The subcontract for this work was advertised today and the work will proceed, if weather permits, this spring. The subcontract for the column and beam components of the guideway has been called in sequence and within an acceptable schedule for the work.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where is the member for York-Forest Hill getting his information?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He got it from the Premier’s speech.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Givens: The Premier is 3½ months late now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park had asked the previous question.

Mr. Lewis: No, the member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. Speaker: I stand corrected. The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Good: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Wentworth is next, I am sorry.

SPENDING CEILINGS IN EDUCATION

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Is it the intention of the minister to revise the spending ceilings in education this current year in addition to the ones last year, and if so, will he make the announcement soon in order that there will not be any need to restart negotiations after the announcement is made?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): I don’t know exactly what the hon. member is driving at except that perhaps some boards have been sending us in briefs indicating that there have been changes in the economy since the 1974 ceilings were announced in August, 1973. We have been studying those briefs very carefully and some time shortly will make a comment on all those briefs from the various boards.

Mr. Deans: Well, one supplementary question: Does that mean that there is the possibility of a revision in the spending ceilings for education in the Province of Ontario this year?

Hon. Mr. Wells: All I can tell the hon. member is that we are studying the briefs that the various boards have sent in indicating changes in the cost of living figures that apply to their budgets.

Mr. Lewis: In other words, by way of supplementary, the minister is going to revise the ceilings upwards, allegedly to meet the inflationary spiral, but in fact to try to take the heat off present government policy?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I didn’t say that at all. I said we were studying the briefs that were sent in. Now surely, as responsible persons over here in a ministry, we should study what boards, in good faith, send in to us.

Mr. Lewis: We await an announcement. The minister should make the announcement soon because negotiations are under way.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Those briefs have been sent in, they are being studied and they will all be answered. They haven’t been answered yet.

Mr. Deans: Okay. Please don’t wait too long.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

ASSESSMENTS ON MOBILE HOMES

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Revenue. In view of the fact that recent court decisions have allowed that assessments can be made on mobile homes under the general provisions of the Assessment Act, which was not previously done, does the minister consider that this is the intent of the present legislation? If it is not, would he take steps to amend the legislation, or would he see that the Municipal Act is amended so that municipalities cannot put their $20 per month levy on the same mobile homes which are being assessed under the general provisions of the Assessment Act?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, my ministry will have to take a look at that court case and determine whether that interpretation is in fact the one which the government intended to be placed on the section. If it should turn out that it is not, I think we would have to look very carefully at suitable amendments. If those amendments are required to be made under the Municipal Act, they would be made, of course, in another ministry, but if they were to be made under the Assessment Act, then it would be a question for my own ministry. I may have more I can say on that in the not too distant future.

Mr. Good: Just one short supplementary: Could the minister assure the members of the House that people living in mobile homes will not be subject to double taxation under the two respective Acts? This is what people want to know.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, certainly it is not the intention of the government that the owners and residents of mobile homes would be double-taxed.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Snow presented the report of the Ministry of Government Services for the year ending March 31, 1973, and the report of the Provincial Auditor for the year ending March 31, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Irvine presented the general development agreement and the federal-provincial subsidiary agreement for regional economic development in the Cornwall area which were signed between the federal and Ontario governments at Cornwall on Feb. 26, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

PRACTISE OF DENTAL PROSTHESIS ACT

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the Practise of Dental Prosthesis.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the bill allows denturists to take impressions, construct and fit complete upper, lower and partial dentures, and deal directly with the public. This is the same bill that was before the Legislature in my name during the last sessions.

MILK ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, briefly the bill simply follows up on changes that were made in the Milk Act last year and transfers certain powers from the commission to the director of the dairy branch.

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ACT 1974

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves first reading of bill intituled, the Developmental Services Act 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to transfer administrative responsibility for facilities for mentally retarded persons from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This bill is part of a broad policy to implement the provision of a complete range of social services in the community for mentally retarded persons.

MUNICIPAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, on Feb. 26 the Treasurer (Mr. White) had the privilege of signing a general development agreement relating to activities in Ontario of the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and a subsidiary agreement under which the governments of Canada and Ontario will contribute approximately $14 million to development projects in Cornwall. In the coming months I hope we will sign additional agreements covering other areas. The purpose of this bill is to allow municipalities to join us in both financing and undertaking a broad range of regional economic development programmes.

Mr. Speaker, we are anxious to have this bill passed quickly so that we can enter into an agreement with the city of Cornwall. I will be taking it through the legislative process.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Hon. Mr. Guindon moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for three minor amendments to clarify the interpretation of the code, and one amendment which is of a housekeeping nature.

Mr. Martel: I thought the minister was going to take over the investigation into the Human Rights Commission.

MENTAL HEALTH ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to safeguard the rights of individuals deemed abnormal by police officers, who are taken to mental institutions against their will. This bill would make an amendment under section 10 of the Mental Health Act to require that a person who has been detained under that section of the Act be given a medical examination and brought before a justice of the peace within 24 hours to justify his detention. As the Act is presently written, Mr. Speaker, there are no safeguards for individuals and this is a potentially dangerous situation.

Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. R. M. Johnston moves first reading of Bill Pr2.

Mr. Laughren: Too late.

Mr. Martel: The member just bombed. He’ll have to try again.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the hon. member that the time has not approached, at this point, for the reading of private bills. They haven’t gone through the private bills committee; the procedural affairs committee, in fact.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, consideration of the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. Beckett moves, seconded by Mr. Havrot, that a humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald, PC, CD, QC, LL.D, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario;

“May it please Your Honour:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects of the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.”

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brantford.

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to be called upon to move this address to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. I am certain all members of this Legislature will join me in thanking His Honour for his words of confidence and inspiration which will surely guide us well in our deliberations in the days and nights ahead; deliberations which will, indeed, have a decided effect on all of us in Ontario in the future years.

I am sure all members of this Legislature will join me in an expression of appreciation to His Honour for the very excellent manner in which he has represented Her Majesty the Queen during his term of office as Lie tenant Governor of Ontario. We all regret that his term of office is shortly to be completed.

The Lieutenant Governor has not spared himself in his constant activities throughout this province. He has visited most parts of this province and has left an indelible impression of the dignity and graciousness that he has given to his high office.

He has taken a very special interest in the young people of this province and he has inspired them. He has an excellent sense of humour and has established a rapport with young and old that is the envy of all people in political life.

I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to place on the official record of this hon. assembly my personal appreciation of the Lieutenant Governor, since his home is in my riding of Brantford.

As all hon. members are aware, W. Ross Macdonald served the citizens of Brantford for many years as the Member of Parliament for Brantford. He has served as Speaker of the House of Commons in Ottawa, as government leader of the Senate, and as a Senator. His many accomplishments in the public service are too numerous to mention today; however, we will all have the opportunity to honour this great Canadian later this month and I’m sure we are all looking forward to this happy occasion.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the forthcoming appointment of Mrs. Pauline McGibbon as Her Majesty’s representative in Ontario. I am sure all members are looking forward to Mrs. McGibbon’s tenure of office with great anticipation and that she will bring to this high office the graciousness and distinction to which we have become accustomed.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see you back in the chair with your accustomed good humour and apparent good health. I believe all members share in the appreciation of the difficult job you do so well. There are, of course, occasions when some members in the heat of debate will be unhappy with your decisions. However, I am confident that when the heat of battle cools all members will agree you have served with distinction and with fairness to all, and we are delighted to see you there.

I wish also to congratulate the new members of cabinet who have new responsibilities in the challenging days that lie ahead. I am sure they will once again demonstrate the qualities of leadership which have made Ontario the great province that it is today. The former cabinet members deserve our respect and appreciation for their years of excellent service to the people of the province. I am delighted that we will continue to have the benefit of their experience and counsel in this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne indicates to this assembly and to the citizens of this province the concerns of the government and its proposals to deal with these concerns. I feel that the speech delivered last Tuesday by His Honour was an excellent Throne Speech because it clearly indicates that this government recognizes its responsibilities, is prepared to accept these responsibilities and, most important, to act in a responsible manner.

The Throne Speech faced up to today’s realities of inflation and the energy problem. It rightly placed inflation as a country-wide problem that can only be dealt with on a country-wide basis. It made no pie in the sky proposals on either inflation or energy but it did promise the essential co-operation with the government of Canada and the other provinces so that these problems can be minimized to the benefit of all.

The programmes announced to improve essential services to remote areas of the province deserve the support of all members of this assembly. I think it is important to remember that the speech emphasized consultation and co-operation with those wishing to participate. The Polar Gas project is an exciting project with great future significance to our province. A James Bay area port could bring benefits to that area and to all the province.

I am pleased to note the improved loan programmes and financial assistance will continue to be available to tourist operators, small businesses and service industries. The key word here is improve because although the loans and assistance have been available the conditions, in my opinion, have been too restrictive. Small businesses are the backbone of Ontario’s economy and they merit real assistance. Small businesses provide a great deal of varied employment for our citizens.

Having served on the select committee on the utilization of educational facilities, I welcome the statement that the government proposes to expand academic and cultural opportunities in the open sector of post-secondary education. The extension of educational broadcasts within the province is a further step that will provide a needed service which has been largely confined to the Metro Toronto area. New and innovative educational materials for school and college students as well as persons learning at home is good news for those interested or concerned with such needs. Let’s get on with it.

I am sure that all members will welcome the announcement of an income support programme to aid Ontario’s older citizens and for the disabled. These two groups of our population have been caught in the inflationary spiral. The only probable disagreement will be in how much support and how soon will the support be available. I have, as every other member of this House has, I am sure, many people in my riding whom I will recommend for such income support. The proposal for a prescription drug plan for senior citizens will also be good news. We all must know of many senior citizens whose lives will be made easier with such assistance.

The new programmes for assistance to co-operative daycare centres in low-income areas, the making available of resources to expand high priority services such as those for handicapped children, children from low-income families and native children, are all commendable. But the proposal I like best is the review of the regulations with the aim of removing unnecessary impediments to the creation of new services.

Mr. Speaker, not being trained in law I do not pretend to understand all of the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s report on the administration of the courts. However, I am sure that there are more than enough in this House who are trained in law, and if they can agree on a planned programme of implementation for judicial areas and for the rotation of judges and trial centres throughout these areas after consultation with those affected, I will be content.

If, however, this should mean the appointment of an additional provincial judge in the provincial court in Brantford, I will be grateful. The city council of Brantford and the Brant County Bar Association have requested such an additional appointment to facilitate the court procedures in Brant county. The present judge has had no other recourse than to adjourn cases from February to June because of his heavy docket.

I welcome the new procedures in the Ministry of Correctional Services, the proposal for legislation on consumer product warranties and guarantees, and new redress procedures in the field of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I am sure that all members, in our unofficial role as ombudsmen, have been frustrated in the past in these matters of better protection for consumers. Caveat Emptor -- let the buyer beware -- is not a good slogan in these days of high-pressure sales made to unwary purchasers who too often are in the low-income bracket.

Before some hon. members feel I am too happy, I would like to indicate that I am not happy with some of the implications of a mandatory use of automobile seat belts. I am not happy with a law that apparently would be so difficult to enforce and so easy to evade. I also have been told of several incidents where survival of an automobile driver or passenger has been possible because the seat belt was not being used. People have been trapped, I have been informed, by seat belts in automobile accidents.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Is the member going to vote for the bill?

Mr. Beckett: I am sure that this matter will receive much attention before legislation is passed, and at this time I will await further evidence before casting my vote.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Very healthy attitude.

An hon. member: He’s going to abstain.

Mr. Beckett: I particularly approve of the special efforts that will be made to encourage local initiatives for community-based mental-retardation services, including new community residences. Assistance to a larger number of physically and mentally disabled persons in their own communities is important. Such persons are nearly always happier in familiar surroundings and not in some massive far-away institution. The burden of extensive and costly travel for visiting purposes is also removed from the families of such persons.

The health planning task force report, chaired by Dr. Fraser Mustard, and its proposals for the further development of a comprehensive health plan will be studied with eager anticipation. Dr. Mustard has an impressive reputation and I hope his task force report is as frank as he has been in person.

I welcome the new housing proposals. In my own riding of Brantford, where the major urban centre is the city of Brantford, there is a major building boom in residential units but the shortage of serviced land will shortly curtail this programme.

Land costs are already too high and will likely continue to rise as the shortage continues. In Brantford, without the small Ontario Housing Home Ownership Made Easy programme this year, it would be nearly impossible for the low- or medium-income earners to purchase a home. My personal conviction is that these land costs will not come down or even level off until there is a surplus of lots available. This can only be achieved by the development of serviced land in the surrounding township of Brantford. Such development can be achieved if the future of local government in Brant county is shortly resolved and some further assistance is granted to municipalities to provide sewer facilities.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Brantford might try some public ownership as well.

Mr. Beckett: The Ontario Housing Corp. owns approximately 1,000 acres in a land bank in the township of Brantford. The city could physically service such lands soon if municipal boundaries are established at local government’s request and with ministerial approval. Financial assistance by the province will be necessary to expedite such mammoth sewer construction. Lands are being held in our area by the private sector for future development and the majority of the land is still under agricultural production, but if it were not I would request the implementation of government assistance to ensure the continued agricultural production use of these lands. I believe this to be a legitimate and necessary government control.

I’m encouraged by the neighbourhood improvement programmes, the provincial home renewal programme, and hope that these plans can be facilitated as soon as possible.

This year the citizens of Brant county and Brantford are celebrating the centennial of the invention of the telephone by Dr. Alexander Graham Bell in Brantford in 1874.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There has been trouble ever since.

Mr. Beckett: To those of you who thought that Don Ameche in the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer production invented the telephone in Boston, USA, I would refer you to the official history text that will show that Dr. Bell in his own words and handwriting confirmed that the telephone was indeed invented at Brantford. These celebrations commenced on Jan. 1, 1974, Mr. Speaker, and will continue throughout the whole year. On July 7 the Bell centennial parade with the theme, “Thank you, Dr. Bell,” will be held with over 100 floats and many marching bands. I take pleasure inviting the hon. members of this House and their families to attend and see what will probably be the largest parade ever held in Canada.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Will the member for Brantford put us up?

Mr. Beckett: Perhaps the members of this House could put aside political feelings for one day and enter a float. The theme of such a float could be our appreciation to Dr. Bell for providing us with such a useful means of easy communication between ourselves here in Toronto and with the citizens in our ridings.

I’m sure that some hon. members will have wished, as I often have, that Dr. Bell had stayed in bed instead of inventing a telephone, but if he hadn’t some other scientist would have, and it probably would not have been in Brantford, Ont., but in a foreign land and we would have had to learn a foreign language.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Timiskaming,

Mr. Cassidy: Now we know why you sent around the Tums.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Wait till I get around to that. I’ll get around to him.

It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege for me to second the motion of the hon. member for Brantford for the adoption of the Speech from the Throne.

I too would like to pay tribute to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor for the manner in which he has carried out the duties and responsibilities of his office. He has combined charm and good humour with dignity and enthusiasm and vigour with decorum.

Before I get on with the details of my speech, I would like to make a few comments on my observations as a first-term member of this Legislature during the past three sessions. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I’m very much impressed with your great dedication and ability in handling the daily complex problems of this House. No individual member, whether on the government side or in opposition, spends as much time in the Legislature listening to the countless hours of debate as you, Mr. Speaker. For this reason I firmly believe you must have the most calloused pair of ears of any human being in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, my impressions of the opposition members in this Legislature leave me wondering how such talent -- listen to this -- talent, is wasted in countless hours of nonsensical childish bickering. I am told that many of the speeches made are replays from previous years, like warmed-up coffee, flat and bitter, or like baloney, lots of filler but very little meat.

I realize it is very difficult for opposition members to find genuine criticism of good government. However, I would assume that they would at least spend some more time looking for ways and means of further improving our system of government, rather than constantly bellyaching and grand-standing.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Maybe the hon. member should follow the first rule -- and that is that he can’t read a speech.

Mr. Havrot: I don’t know which is worse, my sore back or his voice.

Much has been said about televising the debates from this Legislature for the people of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, I would very much welcome such a suggestion as it would once and for all give the taxpayers of Ontario a clearer picture as to how our democratic process operates, rather than relying on biased reports from the press gallery.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Havrot: I am coming to them now.

As one who has great concern for the welfare of my fellow man, I am pleased to provide temporary relief to the opposition members with a roll of tablets for “stomach orders and bellyaches” in the hope that it may create some harmony in this House for at least several days.

Mr. Cassidy: He is going to give it to the rump as well, I hope.

Mr. Havrot: No, the members opposite are the only fellows who will get it -- don’t worry.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier (Mr. Davis) is interested in what the member has to say.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): So is the whole cabinet.

Mr. Havrot: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to represent my people in the riding of Timiskaming, which I may add is a big and beautiful area --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Havrot: -- almost as big as your mouth.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Havrot: It is rated by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism as one of the most beautiful ridings in the province. It stretches from south of Latchford for over 100 miles to north of Kirkland Lake. It is bounded by the Quebec border to the east and reaches past Elk Lake to the west. It is surrounded by Cochrane South to the north. Nickel Belt to the west, and Nipissing to the south; and considering the political affiliation of the members from those ridings, I may be forgiven for stating that there are ample reasons for regarding Timiskaming as one of the more intelligent districts in the north.

Mr. Cassidy: One can’t say that for the member.

Mr. Havrot: It is a riding which is largely dependent upon mining, lumbering, farming, tourism and light manufacturing.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): And Ed Havrot.

Mr. Havrot: Mr. Speaker, my greatest area of concern is the lack of employment opportunities for the hundreds of capable young people graduating annually from our high schools and community colleges who are lured to the bright spots of Toronto and the job opportunities of the “golden horseshoe.” The north has become an educational factory for business and industry of southern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, as a major step to stem the flow of our youth from the north I would like to strongly urge my government to take immediate action to implement the Maple Mountain project, which is located 30 miles west of the town of Haileybury.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): “George,” we will send you these Tums over.

Mr. Martel: The Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) just fell off his chair on that.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Put your hand up, “Gomer,” we will let you go to the bathroom.

Mr. Havrot: During the past two years this project has received a tremendous amount of publicity by all the media across the province. I might also add that it has received enthusiastic support from municipal councils in northeastern Ontario from Sudbury to Kapuskasing, representing almost a quarter of a million people.

The cost of this proposed project has been kicked around like a football, ranging anywhere from $40 million to $100 million. Another misconception has been that the project will be funded entirely from the public sector. This is not so and here are the facts:

Stage one: Total estimated expenditure -- $42 million. Forty-six percent of this amount would be funded over a five-year period by the provincial and federal governments yielding an 8½ per cent return on investment, and the balance of 54 per cent from the private sector.

Of more than 30 sites thoroughly investigated throughout many areas of the province, Maple Mountain was the only site that had all the ingredients to develop a year-round resort community providing a full range of recreational activity to attract large numbers of visitors for extended periods of stay.

Mr. Cassidy: I hear it is pretty cold for skiing in the winter up there.

Mr. Havrot: Well, we live up there. How does my friend figure that one?

Mr. Cassidy: It’s about 25 deg. colder than the Laurentians.

Mr. Havrot: It is 2 deg. colder, the statistics prove, my friend.

The potential economic and social benefits to the region are enormous. Through the construction of stage one alone over 1,200 people would be employed. Once in operation, stage one would employ over 900 people. Most of those would commute from the Tritown area.

It is estimated that this project would attract up to 17.6 million visitor dollars annually, compared with $7.3 million for the entire riding in 1972, not to mention those dollars which will be spent directly off-site and throughout the region. The greatest percentage of all these dollars, through labour costs and the purchase of services, goods and supplies, will remain in the north.

Every effort will be made to encourage local individual and corporate financial participation in the project, and such would ensure that even more dollars would remain in the north. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that many northerners have already expressed a genuine interest to invest in this most exciting project. I urge the government to consider what this project will mean, not just to my riding, but to the entire north country.

Tourism has to be developed in the north as our mines and forests will not last forever. It can and will provide new opportunities for private capital. It can provide many hundreds of jobs for young people who want to live in the north. If we have a major tourist attraction, international in its scope, then we will see tourists spill out all over the north, but we desperately need some magnet to draw them into the area.

Mr. Cassidy: They will take the bus to Cobalt and buy a cup of coffee, eh?

Mr. Havrot: That magnet, Mr. Speaker, is the Maple Mountain project, which contains immense potential for revitalizing the north country. I didn’t hear the member -- a little louder please.

Mr. Cassidy: They will take the bus to Cobalt and buy a cup of coffee. That is the spin-off from that proposition. All the rest of the region will get nothing more.

Mr. Havrot: That’s just about the size of the member’s mind -- about the size of a cup of coffee.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Havrot: Another great area of concern to me, Mr. Speaker, has been the decision on the part of most ministries at Queen’s Park to locate the bulk of regional and district offices in the larger, more expensive and prosperous communities of the north -- completely ignoring the smaller, less prosperous communities which are struggling for survival. I strongly feel that if the north is to grow, it must grow together and not in the isolated population growth areas.

This problem of centralization and bureaucratic thinking extends to the Ontario Northland Railway. Despite all kinds of efforts at the political level to make the ONR a vital and imaginative development growth, it is regarded by most northerners as solely a North Bay concern.

To elaborate on this point, North Bay does not produce a dollar’s worth of revenue for the ONR, yet the main operations are concentrated in the Bay. The communities along the system which help produce the revenues are gradually being downgraded with staff, workshop and equipment reductions -- and in some cases are being phased out completely.

I would also like to suggest that we need younger and more vigorous commissioners and the appointment of a commissioner to represent labour on the ONR --

Mr. Ferrier: They need a new chairman too.

Mr. Cassidy: They need a new chairman, yes. Take the land speculators out of the ONR.

Mr. Havrot: The members opposite couldn’t hold a candle to him. They couldn’t hold a candle to the chairman. The only thing they have got longer than he has is a tongue. I congratulate my government on the improvement to the norOntair service and the utilization of a new municipal airstrip at Kirkland Lake. This excellent facility now provides a connecting link for people in the Kirkland Lake, Englehart, Earlton, and Tritown with Air Canada and Sudbury --

Mr. Cassidy: Is the member bucking for the chairman’s job?

Mr. Havrot: -- on two direct return flights daily from Toronto with an average flying time of only two hours each way.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the north appreciate the excellent community colleges, but I feel that the time has come for a complete survey of community college facilities in Ontario and that no more should be built or enlarged until our present facilities are operating at capacity. The college in Kirkland Lake is operating at about 50 per cent capacity and the situation in Timmins isn’t much better. I see constant duplication and outright competition with taxpayers’ money between the colleges in Ontario as they seek students. It would make more sense to offer increased grants to southern Ontario students to locate in the north rather than spend more millions in expansion in the south.

I am well aware that this government and the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) are concerned over the increasing costs of medical services. I do suggest that we should replace the present cumbersome billing procedures with a simple credit card. After all, if you can get four new tires and a grease job simply by presenting a credit card, I see no reason why medical attention should require so much paper work.

Since transportation has been one of the major problems of the north, I very much welcome the recent appointment of my good friend and colleague, John Rhodes of Sault Ste. Marie, as Minister of Transportation and Communications. This appointment --

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Repeat that.

Mr. Havrot: Oh, would the minister like a replay? Since transportation has been one of the major problems of the north, I very much welcome the recent appointment of my good friend and colleague, John Rhodes of Sault Ste. Marie, as Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Rhodes for roads.

Mr. Havrot: This appointment brings the number of cabinet ministers to three from northeastern and northwestern Ontario and clearly indicates that the government recognizes the needs and priorities of the north. I might also add that this is the first time in the history of the province that this important portfolio has been held by a northern member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: How about that?

Mr. Havrot: The government unveiled this past year a series of important steps designed to benefit the economy of northern Ontario. A 10 per cent increase in general support grants, announced in the budget for northern municipalities, is in addition to grants made to all other Ontario municipalities. The new business incentive programme provides for loans to new or expanding northern businesses of up to $1 million or 90 per cent of capital costs and may be interest-free. Interim reductions on freight rates averaging 18 per cent are in effect in northeastern Ontario. They have helped to reduce costs of incoming goods and permit outgoing products to compete more effectively in southern markets.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted by the recognition given to northern Ontario in the Speech from the Throne. The opportunity to establish local community councils in unorganized townships in northern Ontario is most welcome. Studies to establish a port facility in the James Bay area to bring potential supplies of gas, oil and minerals from sources in the eastern Arctic will no doubt stimulate exploration and there is a good possibility that this area could well become a major producer of natural gas for Ontario.

I wholeheartedly support the proposal for a prescription drug plan for senior citizens. The present form of assistance through welfare agencies is totally unacceptable.

The provincial home renewal programme which provides grants to homeowners in municipalities for preserving and upgrading the quality of existing homes will be of great benefit to the people of the north. Over the years, many homeowners have experienced difficulties in obtaining loans at reasonable rates to improve their homes.

I look forward to the implementation of these and other recommendations in the fourth session of the 29th Parliament. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 3:50 o’clock, p.m.