Hansard Transcripts 1981-May-28 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Just before beginning the business of the House this afternoon I would like to remind all honourable members and other interested persons of the unveiling of the portrait of the former Speaker, Jack Stokes, of the New Democratic Party, which will take place outside this chamber when the House rises at six o'clock this evening.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INSTALLATION OF VANCOUVER LRT

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) would not want me to miss this opportunity to make this statement.

I want to inform the honourable members that my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and I will be in Vancouver tomorrow morning to take part in the official signing of a contract to provide an advanced light rapid transit service for the people of greater Vancouver.

I also regret that the honourable member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) is not here to listen to this. I know how supportive he is.

The contract for the Vancouver project will be between the Urban Transportation Authority, a crown corporation of the government of British Columbia, and Metro Canada Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation Limited, which was created, funded and is owned by the government of Ontario.

The signing of this contract will represent a significant advance for UTDC's technology in a field of endeavour close to my heart, public transit. This is a modern-day Canadian product developed by Canadians not only for Canadians but for all countries around the world that are looking for innovative ways to develop rapid transit to meet the needs of people in urban centres. It is the most advanced, the most economical and the quietest rapid transit service available anywhere in the world.

Mr. Cassidy: Now that you have dealt with Vancouver, how about dealing with Armstrong?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will not work in Armstrong, I must say with regret.

The government of Ontario has invested $60 million to develop this first-rate transit service, which has been tested and proved reliable at UTDC's transit development centre near Kingston.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I know how enthusiastic the honourable members are across the House.

Signing of the first contract for revenue service represents a vote of confidence in Canadian urban transit capability by one of our nation's greatest cities. It also justifies the faith of the government of Ontario in the ability of our people and industries to be imaginative and competitive in the world marketplace.

UTDC's contract with the government of British Columbia's authority will make provision for a related agreement providing substantial industrial benefits to both British Columbia and Ontario. Our two provinces will be in a position in the future to develop jointly the export market for this advanced technology. This transit project and the related industrial benefits package should, in my opinion, represent a model for future industrial co-operation among all provinces.

I know I speak for all members of the House when I express the pride we feel in this accomplishment and how we look forward to the official opening of the Vancouver advanced light rapid transit service when construction is complete in late 1985 or early 1986. I intend as Premier of the province to be there at that official opening, whatever the date may be.

Canadians, when we work together, can advance beyond international competition and sustain a level of excellence for all the world. We in Ontario are pleased to join with Canadians in British Columbia in this great national project. I know the Leader of the Opposition in particular would like me to extend on his behalf his congratulations and those of his party to Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Foley and all of those associated with UTDC for this very significant development in the industrial life of Canada.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier says, he knows I would want to join with him in extending certain congratulations. I simply want to add to the list the Canadian government, whose generous support to BC to buy this particular project has made the deal possible.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I will introduce an act to amend the Power Corporation Act. The proposed amendments will expand the authority of Ontario Hydro to allow two of the major programs outlined in the recent Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program to proceed.

The first aspect of this bill authorizes Ontario Hydro to undertake a residential energy advisory program. As the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced in March, this energy conservation program will encourage greater efficiency, conservation and safety in the use of electric power in homes. Ontario Hydro will offer advice and inspection services to home owners as well as loans of up to $2,000 at attractive interest rates to help install equipment and material in accordance with this program. Municipal utilities will be authorized to carry out a similar program in urban areas and to serve as agents of Ontario Hydro when offering the loans.

2:10 p.m.

The second aspect of this bill gives Ontario Hydro the authority to produce, sell, supply, as well as deliver heat energy such as steam and/or hot water as a primary product of that corporation. As many members know, this is especially important to the development of the Bruce Energy Centre, which is adjacent to the Bruce nuclear power development. This amendment will permit Ontario Hydro to sell steam or hot water to the Ontario Energy Corporation as part of a scheme to develop industries and greenhouses and fish farms at the Bruce Energy Centre.

The government attaches a high priority to these two very vital and important elements in achieving our goal of greater energy security for Ontario.

HIGHWAY SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you and the members of the Legislature today that on Monday, June 1, 1981, my ministry will implement two more recommendations of the select committee on highway safety: a probationary driver's status for new drivers, and a redefining of the demerit point system, a system which will relate any point infractions to the date of the offence instead of the date of conviction for all drivers.

Starting with the probationary status, I would like to explain why it is being implemented and what it will mean to new drivers. The why is relatively simple. As the select committee noted, too many of our new drivers appear to be demonstrating a lack of respect for the traffic laws of this province, resulting in a disproportionately high rate of collisions and convictions.

We believe the probationary status with the automatic suspension of one's licence at six demerit points within either the first or second year of his probationary period will have a definite and positive impact on all new drivers, especially those who are potentially careless. Probationary status will apply to every new driver, regardless of age, including anyone who has not held an Ontario driver's licence within the previous three years. It will also automatically exclude new drivers from holding either a school bus driver's licence -- a class B or class E licence -- or a driving instructor's licence.

There will be exceptions to the probationary status, of course, for any drivers who can show they have held for a period of two years in the previous three, a valid driver's licence from another province or territory in Canada or a state of the United States of America, a Canadian Forces Europe operator's licence, or a combination of any of these.

The licence of a probationary driver will have no distinguishing marks. It will be exactly the same as the present driver's licence. However, under this program, new drivers will have to complete two one-year driving periods free of suspension for traffic violations before the probationary status will be removed. Suspensions will come sooner for careless new drivers than under the present system, since they will have their licence suspended for 30 days upon the accumulation of six points, not 15 demerit points, which will still apply for nonprobationary drivers.

To refresh members' memories on demerit points I would like to point out that a conviction for careless driving or racing results in six demerit points on a driver's record, as does a conviction for exceeding the speed limit by 50 or more kilometres per hour. Exceeding the speed limit by 16 to 29 kilometres per hour results in three demerit points, so that two such speeding convictions within a year will bring the probationary driver to the six-point mark and will result in automatic suspension of licence.

Unless probationary drivers accumulate these six points in one fell swoop, they will be advised by letter at the time they accumulate their first points that an automatic suspension will follow upon reaching six points. When probationary drivers have their licences suspended, their demerit points will be reduced to zero but they will retain the probationary status until they have completed the necessary two one-year periods free of suspension.

I would like to outline briefly the changes to the demerit point system which will affect all drivers. Under the new regulation, demerit points will still remain effective for two years, but will be assessed back to the date of the offence instead of the present date of conviction. I should point out that this will be done only after the conviction occurs.

This will eliminate a present loophole whereby high-point drivers can delay their trials until previously registered demerit points are removed from their records, thus avoiding a 15-point suspension. This regulation has a protection clause to ensure that no drivers will be suspended under the new date-of-offence rule whose cases are pending before the courts. Such convictions will not be backdated, resulting in unexpected suspensions.

As I mentioned earlier, I am confident these measures will help to make all drivers more responsive to the traffic laws of this province, and at the same time make our highways and streets safer for all of us.

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT VICTIMS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a further statement I would like to make today. I would like to bring to the attention of the honourable members of this House a study undertaken by my ministry and the Ministry of Health which illustrates only too well the cost of motor vehicle accidents, to the victims, those immediately involved and society in general. The study report is entitled Injury: An Ontario Survey of the Societal and Personal Costs of Hospitalized Motor Vehicle Victims.

I will table three copies of this report with the Clerk at this time. Copies of the general summary have been made available via the legislative post office to all members.

The study grew out of another joint MTC-Health effort undertaken in 1978 which examined the cost of active in-hospital treatment for vehicle accident victims. It focused on victims of vehicle accidents that occurred in 1975 and 1976, spanning the period before and after the introduction of mandatory seatbelt use and lowered speed limits on some provincial highways. It concluded that the cost of active treatment for belted victims was considerably lower than for unbelted victims. It also documented a marked decrease in overall health care costs for vehicle accident victims, a decrease of almost 11 per cent.

The report I am tabling today examines the long-term costs involved in these accidents, not just health care costs, but some monetary and nonmonetary costs resulting from the same accidents. In addition to sizeable health care expenses, financial costs include vehicle damage, legal services, wage loss and so on. Non-monetary costs such as days lost from work, educational programs and housekeeping, emotional stress or physical after effects are also considered.

I believe it is the first study of its kind in Canada dealing with the broader spectrum of such costs. It will, no doubt, provide some food for thought for transportation administrators, safety officials and, I hope, drivers throughout this province.

Although the study indicates the precise cost of accidents to society is difficult to calculate, it does conclude that based on the sample of 524 respondents, the annual cost of hospitalized motor vehicle accident injuries was more than $159 million. If inflation were taken into account, the estimated annual total in 1980 dollars would be in the neighbourhood of $231 million.

I would remind members that this is based only on victims who were treated in a hospital, whether for a minor scrape on the forehead or a critical injury. It does not, therefore, include the costs of private medical care; for example, the fellow who sprains an ankle in an accident but goes to his family doctor for treatment and does not attend the hospital.

This figure of $231 million is startling, and, I think members will agree, unnecessarily high. It also does not include the nonmonetary costs absorbed by the victims, their families, employers or others who may have been affected.

I would like to quote from a study summary which, in turn, quotes a statement from an anguished parent whose 15-year-old daughter was an accident victim: "It is impossible to estimate the real costs of an accident. Financially there were no losses. Socially, emotionally and intellectually, the costs have been enormous and uncompensated."

2:20 p.m.

This particular young victim still experiences speech and limb difficulties although the paralysis diminished over a period of three years. It is obvious we simply cannot put a price on that kind of injury, but it is just as real and just as important as the financial toll taken by motor vehicle accidents.

The findings of this study clearly demonstrate the need for more stringent highway safety measures because, as a society, we simply cannot afford to bear the cost of motor vehicle accidents.

The study results also underscore the timeliness and importance of an event that is taking place here in Toronto next week. I am referring to the International Symposium on Occupant Restraint, which is being cosponsored by my ministry, the Ministry of Health and the American Association for Automotive Medicine.

This symposium, at the Hotel Westin from June 1 through 3, focuses on the need for a greater commitment, on the part of physicians, public health officials and legislators, to methods of improving and increasing the use of occupant restraints, something we know can save lives and reduce injuries.

It has attracted experts from all over the world who will deliver presentations on various aspects of the issue, some of which are medical and social perspectives of occupant restraint, mandatory seatbelt laws and enforcement, and the special needs of infants, children and the handicapped.

I am certain this symposium will be an informative experience for all of us interested in reducing the number and cost of traffic deaths and injuries.

PAYMENT TO SOW-WEANER PRODUCERS

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that the Ontario Farm Income Stabilization Commission will be making a payment to Ontario sow-weaner producers under the pork stabilization plan. About 4,400 sow-weaner producers will be receiving payments on a total of 190,000 eligible sows. The total amount of the payment is $10 million, representing $51.94 per sow. It is expected that the cheques will be in the mail by late June.

The payment is based on a formula using a five-year average of the price of market hogs adjusted for cash costs of production. The plan was designed to ensure that our hog industry would survive periods of low prices by making it possible for sow-weaner producers to remain in business.

Unfortunately, the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, has decided to deduct Ontario's payment from the amount the federal plan will pay to Ontario producers of market hogs. This decision is so unjust and so unfair that I find it hard to believe that an elected representative could even think of doing it. However, Mr. Whelan apparently intends to do just that.

As I have pointed out to Mr. Whelan, Ontario and Quebec have almost identical sow-weaner plans and yet only Ontario producers are going to be penalized with this deduction. The decision to water down an already weak federal plan strikes at the foundations of the stabilization program at a time when producers need it most.

The Ontario plan was designed to fit smoothly into the federal plan. Our staff and the federal staff co-operated during the development of the Ontario plan in 1976 and we had an understanding with the federal government that our plan did not constitute excessive top-loading. Now Mr. Whelan is going back on this understanding. He claims the decision to deduct Ontario's payment from the federal payment was made to discourage excessive top-loading. He also says it was done to establish leadership. The only place he is leading us is into trouble.

Ontario producers need the security of knowing what their receipts and incomes are going to be. They must know this or they cannot plan for the next production period. Stabilization plans were established to bring this kind of security to the hog industry. Now Mr. Whelan is making stabilization itself another source of uncertainty. Producers must now ask themselves, "Will the federal government make a full payment or will they decide to shave it somehow?"

I have sent a telex to Mr. Whelan pointing out the very unequal treatment Ontario is receiving. I have pointed out to him that an Ontario farrow-to-finish operation stands to lose $3.63 per hog for no good reason. I have requested that he meet with Mr. Douglas Farrell, chairman of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board, and me so that we can straighten this matter out and get equitable treatment for Ontario producers.

Mr. Whelan is still out of the country so I have received only an acknowledgement from his office, but I intend to pursue this matter. The farmers of this province deserve better treatment from the government of Canada.

ORAL QUESTIONS

APPRENTICESHIP BRANCH

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Given the importance of increasing the number of skilled workers, something outlined by the federal minister and given lip service by the provincial minister, would the minister not agree it is a very unusual matter indeed to be actually implementing both budget cuts and personnel cuts on the apprenticeship branch of her ministry?

Is she aware of the minutes of the meeting that have come to me, held on March 27, in which a number, 20 to be exact, of budget requests have been denied? I do not want to use the time of the House to read them all but they include staff required to operate the new computer activity, staff required to give clerical support, temporary personnel, special supplies and special clothing such as hard hats and safety glasses. All kinds of things have been denied, all 20 requests, including funds for ethnic advertising.

Why has the situation come to what has been called by their chairman, and I quote, "a grave situation with respect to the 1981-82 budget"? Given the need for skilled workers, why would that branch of the ministry find itself so strapped by personnel and budget cuts at this time?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in moving to total computerization of the record-keeping system in the apprenticeship branch, there have been strong suggestions, which I think are supportable, that the actual number of staff required within the central branch might be reduced. That matter is still under consideration and, although there was a preliminary meeting with immediate supervisory staff, the final decisions related to activities within the apprenticeship branch have not been taken.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minutes show very clearly that far from having fewer personnel requirements as a consequence of the new computer system, I quote from the minutes, "The new computer system is experiencing massive growing pains, as we all know." Among the growing pains is the fact that people are now waiting at least six months to receive their certificates after they have passed the examination.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not so.

Mr. Smith: I have the cases, if the minister would like to know about them. She should not say it is not true, because I happen to know people who are waiting. In fact, they specifically asked for additional positions to enable them to work the bugs out of the new computer, and yet that request was denied.

Would the minister comment especially on that, but more particularly on the fact that the following is underlined in the minutes? It was reiterated that, and I quote, "In our dealings with the public, we must not attribute any problems in service to either personnel or dollar cuts." It is not as though they do not expect those problems, because the next sentence, after telling the members of the ministry to lie to the public, is --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Shame.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Would the Premier like to hear this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Mr. Smith: Good. Let me read it to him, Mr. Speaker. "Any problems occasioned by these cuts" -- so obviously they expect problems from the cuts -- "you are not to tell the public that it is due to personnel or dollar cutbacks but you are to bring them to the attention of the director, who will take them up with higher authority."

The question is, why is the minister putting the very branch of her ministry that should be being expanded, the apprenticeship branch, under such hardship? Why are the minister and the people in her ministry telling the folks who meet the public to tell the public anything but the truth that it is the cutbacks that are causing the problems in service?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, only the devious mind of a bedside psychiatrist could come up with such a distortion of what that memo actually said. If it is read properly it should be understood by all that the problem, if a problem arises, is to be directed to the director of the branch in order that the director, with those in immediate supervision of that branch, may solve the problem rather than simply make explanations for it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: With the large number of tradesmen who are reaching the age of retirement and who will not be available to work in the economy over the course of the next five or 10 years, could the minister explain why it is that the government has failed to have any kind of substantial expansion in this current year of its apprenticeship programs? Why, in fact, does the budget indicate that the amount of money allocated for apprenticeship in 1981-82 will not be $1 more than last year and therefore, in terms of the amount of apprenticeship training it can buy, will be down by 10 or 12 per cent?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it will decline in any way during the next year. There are increased efficiencies which have been developed within the branch and are being demonstrated daily. There are, in fact, increased numbers enrolled in apprenticeship programs in Ontario. That is a goal we intend to continue to pursue.

Mr. Haggerty: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Last year about this time I raised a question with the minister relating to the funding from the federal government towards manpower training in Ontario. I believe it is $242 million. At that time she promised she would table that complete document with the expenditure of where the funds went. I have not seen it as of this day. Is it available to the Legislature?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I will check. I thought that had been done. If it has not, then the information will be provided.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister give the figures in terms of the number of people taking apprenticeship training this year compared with last year? When inflation is estimated in the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to run at 12.1 per cent and the dollars allocated for apprenticeship are no different from last year, could she also explain how she can say the program is being expanded? Does that mean she has increased efficiency by 12.1 per cent or more? If so, can she explain how on earth this government has been able to do that here when it has never been able to do that in any other program at any time in its history?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: With great enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker. I do believe there has been a specific and definitive increase in efficiency within that branch as a result of the number of changes that have been introduced by the director of the branch, Mr. Beggs, since he became director. I do believe, as well, that the numbers have increased. I will be pleased to provide the exact numbers for the honourable member.

BURLINGTON BAY SKYWAY

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister will remember that on Tuesday there was a discussion in this House regarding the fact that he seldom talks to his seatmate as regards highways in the province. The subject was Highway 404 at that point.

Is this to be a continuing habit, inasmuch as the people of Hamilton now are in quite a state of concern given the fact that the Ministry of the Environment has stated the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has not yet made a convincing case for the need either to twin the Burlington Bay Skyway bridge or to build a tunnel? In fact the need for that improvement, according to the Ministry of the Environment, has not been made by the Minister of Transportation and Communications, and the Hamilton Spectator quotes the Minister of Transportation and Communications as saying, when given this news, that he was feeling "totally frustrated." He said, "I am somewhat at a loss to know what more they want," and: "God, everyone knows the Burlington Skyway is the biggest bottleneck in the Ontario transportation system. Everyone knows it is at about capacity right now."

Since everyone seems to know this except his seatmate the Minister of the Environment, will the minister first of all undertake to start talking to the Minister of the Environment so that we do not have these constantly embarrassing and havoc-making situations? Second, can he explain to us why the Ministry of Transportation and Communications could not make a convincing case to the Ministry of the Environment in terms of the need for the project, aside from environmental considerations?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I say that it is my opinion that the ministry has made a convincing case. It may not be the opinion of some staff member in the Ministry of the Environment who happened to be the reviewer of that particular report.

Following the government decision to proceed with improvements to the Burlington Bay Skyway, which was announced some considerable period of time ago, it took my ministry several months to complete the environmental assessment documents we had to complete to submit to the Minister of the Environment. They were completed and submitted to the minister in, I believe, December 1979.

After many months of review by the Ministry of the Environment, they submitted their review document a week or 10 days ago, some 18 months after I had submitted the report to the minister. That review document recommends that the ministry proceed with phase one of its three-phase project.

Phase one involves a substantial amount of work on the Queen Elizabeth Way, upgrading four or five interchanges, widening the two-lane lift bridge to four lanes, and work on the grade level crossing. All the things that we had asked for under phase one now are recommended for approval.

We still have to go through the 30-day waiting period and a further 15-day waiting period beyond that, as well as a whole lot of other things, before we can actually start to do anything; and I must say this is only the type one environmental approval that we are getting.

As I said in the newspaper -- and from what the Leader of the Opposition read out, I believe I was quoted correctly -- I do not know what more we can supply to the ministry to substantiate the need.

My deputy minister and senior officials have met with officials of the Ministry of the Environment within the last few days to try to establish what more, if anything, we can supply.

We know that the Burlington Bay Skyway is operating at capacity -- in fact, beyond design capacity. It is the biggest traffic bottleneck in Ontario, and it is one of the most important transportation corridors for the economic commerce of the province.

That is the situation, and I was quoted properly. We will be meeting with the Ministry of the Environment. We will be doing everything possible to proceed with that project.

Mr. Smith: It is most amusing to watch the Minister of Transportation and Communications and the Minister of the Environment washing their dirty linen in public, but unfortunately the soap is getting in the eyes of everybody else. Can the minister possibly get together with the Minister of the Environment and find out what it is they want to know about the need, which is perfectly obvious to everybody who is aware of the problems --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Transportation and Communications on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I answered the specific question that the Leader of the Opposition now is re-asking. In my remarks a few moments ago, I stated that officials of our ministry and the deputy minister had met within the last few days.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Smith: I will accept that the minister said his officials are talking. Maybe I could rephrase the question and ask the minister why it had to hit the headlines in the Hamilton papers so that he is now going to have a delegation from city council and possibly from the regional council coming to ask him what is going on? Why could they not have talked to each other before the matter hit the headlines so the people of Ontario would get the feeling that somebody is minding the store and knows what is going on?

Will he be sure that, whatever the environmental considerations might be -- and those are a separate matter completely -- at least the need for the facility will not be in question much longer, because anyone who has eyes to see can see the desperate need for that additional facility?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have to say to the honourable member that we got the review report of the Ministry of the Environment at the same --

Hon. Mr. Davis: We can see the need for a waste disposal facility.

Mr. Smith: Not in Cayuga. There is not a waste problem there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The honourable member is not listening, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want an answer?

Mr. Smith: The Premier asked me a question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The honourable member asked me the question. He did not ask the Premier.

Mr. Smith: It would be disrespectful if I didn't answer him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Snow has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I was trying to explain, we in the ministry obtained a copy of the review report from the Ministry of the Environment at the same time as the city of Hamilton, the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the general public. I cannot recall the exact date. I am sure it was some time early last week. The senior officials of the ministry got it last week. As well, I discussed with my colleague that I was unhappy and disappointed with the position taken by the ministry.

I do not argue with the process of environmental assessment. I have to say I am terribly frustrated with the delays and the process it has to go through, with the possibility of many months of future delays depending upon the objections or the need for hearings.

I have said to my colleague that we must take a look at this process to see if there is some way of streamlining it so we can live by the act, protect the environment, go through the studies and live by the decisions. In the meantime, we can try to cut out some of these many months of wasted time.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell us whether the decision of the environmental people that the twinning was not needed was based on information his ministry supplied to them, or did they do a separate investigation of their own?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have to argue with the statement of the honourable member that it was a decision of the Ministry of the Environment that the project was not needed. I do not think there was any decision by the Ministry of the Environment. As I read the comments briefly as they came in, these stated they felt my ministry had not supplied enough documentation to substantiate the need.

I know what happens when we submit an environmental assessment to the ministry. I believe we supply 150 copies to the ministry. Many of those are distributed to the public, to the municipalities and to others that are interested. Many are submitted to other ministries of this government, such as the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, to conservation authorities and so on, and they make comments to the Minister of the Environment on our assessment.

The first I knew someone was questioning the need was when this report came back. I do not know where the comments came from to the Ministry of the Environment that would lead the reviewer for that project to make the statement that we had not substantiated it. All he had to do was take his car, drive 20 miles and see what was going on. I do not think he would have questioned the need.

Ms. Copps: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: By way of information to the minister, this report was published a month ago, and I find it amazing that he is not aware of it.

Can I ask the minister, who has had input into this report along with several other ministries in this government, why this report concludes that one of the reasons for opposing the development of some alternatives to the present skyway is that improving transportation in Hamilton-Wentworth could damage industrial development in Burlington?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I say, Mr. Speaker, the comments that go to the Ministry of the Environment, to the actual reviewer who reviews the environmental assessment document that I submit to the minister, come from many areas. It could have been a comment from the city of Burlington that was made in that area. I have no idea where that comment would have come from.

Ms. Copps: By way of information, Mr. Speaker, has the minister read this month-old report?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CANADIAN FARM WORKERS' UNION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to read to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson).

Does the minister agree with the statement that: "It is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees"?

Does the minister agree with that statement, particularly in the light of the plans of the Canadian Farm Workers' Union to organize on Ontario farms this summer?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the origin of this statement, but I believe it is one of the ministers sitting back here -- the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie); and if the Minister of Labour made that statement, yes, we are united in any statements we make.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is very perceptive. In fact, it is not just the Minister of Labour; it is the preamble to the Labour Relations Act of Ontario.

Since the minister says he agrees with that statement, which endorses the right of workers to free collective bargaining, will he retract the following comments, which he was quoted in the paper on Monday as having made: "I think the farmer is quite capable of running his own business without this kind of interference"? The minister was referring to the efforts of the farm workers' union to begin organizing on Ontario farms this summer.

To avoid the possibility of confrontation or violence on farms across this province, will the minister act to ensure that farm workers gain the right to organize under the Labour Relations Act, from which they are now excluded?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: This minister is acting on behalf of the farmers in this province. His position is quite clear.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister clarify which position he is taking at which time today? Are we to believe that he is in favour of free collective bargaining, as he said about two and a half minutes ago, or that he is prepared to prevent the farm workers from seeking to exercise the right of free collective bargaining by every means possible when it comes to the farmers for whom he is responsible? Where does the minister stand?

Will the government come to the rescue and ensure that farm workers get the right to free collective bargaining so that they can have the same rights as are enjoyed by workers in every other sector of the Ontario economy?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I have made it very clear; I am supporting the farmers of this province.

HOME OWNERSHIP

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer concerning the problems of the people in the province who wish to have a house of their own.

I want to ask the Treasurer whether he is aware of the statements made at the annual meeting of Bramalea Limited this week by Mr. Richard Shiff, the chairman and chief executive officer of Bramalea, who said that the family income necessary to support the $70,000 mortgage required on the average home has gone up by 40 per cent and now stands at $46,000 a year.

Since Mr. Shiff says it is an affordability crisis -- and everybody else can attest to that -- and since the estimate of Bramalea is that only 10 per cent of the families renting accommodation can actually afford to buy a home, can the minister explain why there was no response to this problem of home ownership in the budget that he brought down a week and a half ago?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think there were two questions. Was I aware of the comment? No, I was not.

My government has been greatly concerned about that problem. We have discussed it for more than a year. It is a very real problem. We have argued month in and month out that there was some need for the kind of leadership at the federal level that would keep an interest rate in Canada that would permit people on average incomes to own homes.

I hope one of these days the request of my Premier to the first minister of this country to have a first ministers' meeting on the economy to address that kind of issue will be acknowledged and agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: In addition to telling the federal government that it is time to abandon the disastrous high interest rate policy it has been following, and which its Conservative predecessors were following, with the result that this has created many problems, can the minister say whether he is aware that the Bramalea chairman now estimates that seven out of every 10 families who signed an agreement and placed a substantial down payment to buy a home lose the right to buy that home because they are rejected for mortgage purposes and that will shortly lead to a sharp turndown in the construction of housing here in Ontario?

Can the Treasurer explain, when 70 per cent of people who showed that they can buy a house are being shut out because they cannot even meet the mortgage requirements, why it is the government had no specific response to the problem of home ownership in the budget for which this province is responsible?

Hon. F. S. Miller: There are other aspects to home ownership, such as the ability of a person to find a job and the state of the economy. On that basis, I argue that the budget addressed a number of the issues that involve a person's ability to own a home.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister acknowledge what Mr. Shiff calls a financial crisis that has squeezed low- and middle-income families out of the housing market? If the minister acknowledges that, will he inform the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), who seems to be unaware of the problems of low- and middle-income families in terms of getting housing, and will this government undertake to bring in policies that will ensure that once again families on low and middle incomes can have the right to own a home in Ontario and not to be perpetual tenants?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Minister of Housing has basically been asked that question by the member day after day after day. I think he has answered very well.

TILE DRAINAGE

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I trust the minister is aware of this blue document entitled Building Ontario in the 1980s, which was, of course, the Tory party platform in the last election. I trust the minister had a part to play in the programs outlined under the title "Upgrading Farm Land." Unless his memory fails him, I want to refer him to page 21, which states:

"Through land clearing efforts, selective drainage and farmstead improvement, one million acres of farm land in eastern and northern Ontario are capable of being upgraded into high-quality agricultural land. The large capital input required for these improvements will greatly increase the overall productive capacity of the agricultural land base and permit the expansion of the high-value crops in areas where agriculture potential has not been fully realized. To achieve such production, Ontario will establish an acreage improvement fund which will provide financing at favourable rates."

My question to the minister is, if more funds are going to be made available for tile drainage, how does he explain the letter he sent to all municipalities in Ontario, including eastern Ontario and northern Ontario, which states in part, "Because of our budget, I would ask all councils to seriously consider limiting loans to 50 per cent of cost instead of 75 per cent."

In keeping with the promise, when does the minister intend to establish the acreage improvement fund and why is he complicating the farmers' problems further by restricting their tile drainage loans to 50 per cent of the cost instead of the traditional 75 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is beginning to appear like his brethren in Ottawa: he only tells part of the story. Will he be honourable enough to stand up and read the full letter, and not take it out of context?

Mr. Speaker: This is question period. He asked a question.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Then I will answer the question. The member knows full well it is in that letter. Part of it was in a statement I made in this House a year ago March, when I suggested a limitation on loans.

The honourable member knows full well I suggested in that letter that the municipalities can debenture up to half of the total money they had last year. He also knows full well in that letter I asked the municipalities to send a report to me in July as to the number of applications they have. I have assured the municipalities they will have a response by the first part of September, something that was asked of me by the municipalities themselves.

The honourable member apparently cannot read the true facts or does not want to.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I assume the minister does not agree with increased interest rates to a large extent. Does the minister realize what he has done by cutting back from 75 per cent to 50 per cent? He has increased the interest rate the farmer has to pay for tile drainage loans by 60 per cent. Originally, the farmer would have got 75 per cent of his loan at eight per cent, but now he is going to have to pay 22 per cent for the other 25 per cent, which is a 60 per cent increase in the interest rate he now will have to pay for these loans. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member knows what the interest rate is. He knows the guidelines. If he was not here in the House the day I read them out, which was about the last day of March last year, that is his fault. I put my program out here before the honourable member. Apparently, he was not here to hear it and did not want to debate it at that time. The interest rate is eight per cent paid back over a five-year period, and the honourable member knows the full truth of it.

LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have just received some information that I trust the Attorney General has already received. I want to ask him a question on it. I understand the Supreme Court has just ruled that the landlord and tenant section of the Residential Tenancies Act is unconstitutional. What is the government's contingency plan now that there has been this ruling?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as to where we proceed from here, of course, the status quo will prevail for the foreseeable future inasmuch as the county courts, for example, will retain their jurisdiction in these landlord and tenant disputes.

The decision simply affirmed the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal; so it is just a question of continuing or perpetuating the status quo as far as that particular section of the legislation is concerned. It is unfortunate because there is no question, given the large volume of landlord and tenant cases, that this type of tribunal would be more accessible for both landlords and tenants. Hearings could be expedited, and it would be less costly.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court of Canada referred to it as a very worthy objective, but we are caught with the section 96 provisions in the old constitution. This, of course, is one of many reasons why Ontario is supporting the whole process of constitutional reform. Quite frankly, this is perhaps an anomaly in the present constitution; it may even be an anachronism with respect to the need for this type of provincial tribunal.

It is a matter I raised with the Prime Minister of Canada at the first ministers' conference, and he agreed that this aspect of constitutional reform should be given a high priority. However, we still have to live within the British North America Act of 1867, and we do not expect this matter to be resolved until we have patriation with, I hope, a workable amending formula, because we are really talking about an amendment to the constitution.

3 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the Attorney General contacted other ministers of justice across the country to see if they too are interested in developing this kind of opportunity for residential tenancy commissions or their equivalent to do this kind of work, as the Supreme Court of Canada suggested was worthy, so that there will be -- one would hope -- a consistent view from the provinces as to developing this type of expertise and this type of approach to dealing with this kind of problem when constitutional amendments are considered, should the patriation of the constitution be arranged in the near future?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it is a concern that is shared by virtually every province. Every province does agree this is a route that we should be going in the public interest, and we have had some uniformity of approach in this respect. But I certainly agree with the honourable member that is an essential element of constitutional reform in this area.

Mr. Renwick: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Redirecting the attention of the Attorney General to the fundamental problem of landlord-tenant relations, and recognizing that this party voted against the bill and urged early on that the bill was unconstitutional, will the Attorney General make a full statement in the House tomorrow about the implications of the decision of the court, not on the constitutional question but on the question of what this government intends to do now to look at some of the anomalies in the Residential Tenancies Act given the fact that the decisions must be made through the county court system?

I am particularly thinking about things such as the rate of interest payable on security deposits and a number of other miscellaneous matters that are totally within our competence, which appear to have gone by the board unless some action is taken now by the government.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is obviously a complex matter, Mr. Speaker. I have only been advised of the judgement. I have not had an opportunity to read it. Now that we have the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, I agree that the Landlord and Tenant Act and the alleged reported anomalies that the member for Riverdale refers to have to be addressed. This obviously is a matter of considerable concern to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I think it is fair of the member for Riverdale to ask the government what our intentions are in this regard, but I think tomorrow is perhaps a little early to be able to make those intentions known. However, I agree this is a matter that should be given a high priority.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has made the ruling and I asked the Attorney General earlier this week what his feelings were with respect to the rental deposits, is he now prepared to bring in an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act, for which he is responsible, either to increase the amount of interest on rental deposits or alternatively to make this a matter of regulation and thereby make the cabinet responsible for increasing the amount of interest paid on deposits?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can add to the answer I gave to the member for Riverdale a moment ago.

CONSTRUCTION OF LRT CARS

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Premier. In the Premier's statement regarding the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, will this mean that the Hawker Siddeley Can-Car plant in Thunder Bay will receive employment opportunities in the city of Thunder Bay in the construction of these new cars for British Columbia?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I believe that UTDC will be discussing with two, three or four possible suppliers of the vehicle, and I think it is fair to state that Hawker Siddeley of Thunder Bay will be one of those possibilities.

While I am on my feet, I would like to thank the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) for his continued support of that organization and his desire to see that further cars to be used on the GO service will be constructed or manufactured at the Thunder Bay plant. I would also like to tell him I expect the government shortly will have some news on that contract.

PRICE OF URANIUM

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier regarding the fact that Denison Mines, the federal government and the provincial government acted in concert to set up a cartel to purchase uranium for Ontario Hydro. Part of this question is a presentation, which I now will make to him, of this massive fortune cookie worth $2.5 billion. I will show him how to make $2.5 billion quite easily.

The price of uranium has been raised from $8 to $40 a pound. The Premier has, and we have collectively, the power under section 113 of the Mining Act to refuse to grant export permits for unrefined uranium. We have the power to raise the annual acreage fee for mining leases on crown lands to a level that would wipe out Denison Mines' windfall profit.

Mr. Speaker: What is the question, Mr. Sargent?

Mr. Sargent: The question is that Denison Mines now pays about $1 per acre per year for the use of provincial mining lands. We and the Premier have the power to raise the provincial mining tax to a level that would wipe out all these profits.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier not agree?

Mr. Sargent: Thank you. Would the Premier give this House one good reason why we should not move to acquire ownership of Denison Mines to protect Ontario taxpayers from this $7.5-billion ripoff which guarantees them a built-in profit of $2.5 billion no matter what happens to the price of uranium?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this has been a prolonged discussion among the member for Grey-Bruce, myself and others. I really do not want to go back to the early part of the member's question except perhaps to remind him that the phrasing of that part of the question was somewhat unfortunate.

This government never participated with the government of Canada or anyone else --

Mr. Sargent: That was the motivation for it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Be very careful. I want it made abundantly clear this government was never involved with anyone in terms of the discussion or setting of the world price for uranium. I want to make that clear. Perhaps the member did not intend to make that inference but, knowing how he asks questions, perhaps he did. I want to make it clear that was not the case.

With respect to the contract between Ontario Hydro and Denison Mines -- and incidentally Rio Algom, not just Denison -- the honourable member had the occasion along with his colleagues to discuss in great detail the cost implications of that contract. The members of the House did also. I am not going to get into a debate on this occasion as to the figures except to say the government is not contemplating the acquisition of Denison Mines, Rio Algom or any other mining industry.

I must say to the honourable member we have intervened in the private sector. We are endeavouring to assist Massey-Ferguson and I would think the member for Grey-Bruce might want to reconsider the position he took Tuesday night in the light of his conversion to the point of view he has expressed here this afternoon.

Mr. Sargent: That was one of my better nights.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does he remember the point of view? Does he remember the position he took the other night?

Mr. Sargent: That is a bit of dirty pool but let's go anyway.

3:10 p m.

The Premier and I know that Westinghouse in the States found themselves locked into the same price factor. The minehead price was $1 a pound, and if it went up to $40 a pound, Westinghouse across the world would have gone bankrupt and would have lost all their holdings. To save themselves and to stay in business they went to the Supreme Court and they renegotiated the contract. They did that and they won the case.

My point is this: The Premier is the one who hurried it up, by his letter to the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), giving them a deadline of February 28 to finalize the contract. The Premier gave them the deadline. I do not know if the Premier has all that power. I tell him now that he has the right to take over the mine, acquire it for the people of Ontario, but he is still going to go ahead and give them a $2.5-billion profit, plus a $339-million loan -- up-front money that will be interest-free for 40 years.

How can he do all those things? Are those statements wrong; am I not telling the truth?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one ever to accuse the member for Grey-Bruce of not telling the truth. I might on occasion say he is perhaps misinformed, ill-advised or misguided. No one has ever denied the legal availability or at least the possibility of the government acquiring almost anything; I have never disputed that. There is no dispute that the Ontario government has the right in terms of export licence permits; that has been a part of the law for a considerable time.

However, that is really not the issue in this case. I have to repeat to the honourable member, that contract was negotiated with, incidentally, some very able assistance from some very able people, between Denison, Rio Algom, and Ontario Hydro.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier not agree that the one good reason for his response to the Liberal member for Grey-Bruce was that when this issue was before the select committee and we could have had a united opposition recommendation to the government to take over Denison, it was the Liberal Party that backed off from it so that we had a three-way split among the parties and the government could do what it wanted?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say it was not the government doing what it wanted; it was the government supporting Ontario Hydro in what it felt was a proper policy direction. I can only assume that after Tuesday night, from his new policy today, the member for York South is quite right as to what happened on the committee. There is no question that the member for Grey-Bruce is giving serious consideration to moving further to his philosophical and geographic left in joining the other group. I think that is a very valid point to make.

VAUGHAN TOWNSHIP LAND USE

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a question raised earlier by the Leader of the Opposition about my ministry's involvement in an estate residential development proposal in the town of Vaughan.

Mr. Kerrio: Blame it on the feds.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: He apparently is not interested.

In the first instance, staff of the food land development branch reviewed the proposal and indicated some objection to some parts of the proposal. These objections were based on soil maps and the possibility that some of the land could be used for agricultural activity. Some time later, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) suggested I review the matter to clarify the impact upon agricultural activity. At that time I asked my parliamentary assistant, the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), to look at the property as a farmer, a graduate of the Ontario Agriculture College and a member of this Legislature for many years.

Mr. Kerrio: And a good Tory.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes. I believe the difficulty over this application has arisen because the Ontario food land guidelines were applied too rigidly in this case.

My staff and I have thoroughly reviewed the guidelines and the information on the land in question. This review indicated the original application of the guidelines was unsuitable in this case. The maps show about 40 per cent of the area is reasonably good land, but the inspection of the area by the member for Elgin showed the land is cut up into small irregular parcels by gulleys. Long-term farming in these odd-shaped and sometimes steeply sloping parcels is not practical. For the most part they simply do not lend themselves to modern farming methods with large machines. Even the present agricultural activity involving some hobby farming and some cash cropping is in decline.

The guidelines are designed to deal with the ever-changing face of agricultural needs and practices. When this application was first reviewed, sufficient consideration was not given to the changes that have made this area less than ideal for modern agriculture. However, a more complete consideration of the question shows the original application of the guidelines was unrealistic.

Any guideline, or law for that matter, is subject to interpretation. That is why we have courts, appeals to cabinet and a municipal board. It will continue to be my policy to reserve the right to review interpretations of food land guidelines, as it will be the right of the municipalities, the Ontario Municipal Board and cabinet when requested. I do not think any member would want that right denied his or her constituent. This very basic right of the citizens of this province has been impressed upon the staff of my ministry.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It becomes quite apparent upon listening to that answer that the minister clearly could not find anyone in his ministry to examine that land and come to the decision that was requested by the Minister of Housing. It is clear he chose his parliamentary assistant instead -- a partisan -- to come to the appropriate conclusion.

Could the minister tell the people of Ontario of any other time when he has chosen his parliamentary assistant to go to examine whether food land guidelines have been properly applied in cases before the OMB? Could he explain how it is that even after he came to his conclusion, the experts in his ministry stuck by their original decision, and said so in front of the OMB? Can he tell us whether he is aware of how the letter from him to the Minister of Housing found its way into the OMB files?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that this question was asked -- questioning the ability of my parliamentary assistant. If I cannot attend to something myself --

Mr. Riddell: He doesn't have the expertise.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- he is the first man I would turn to and I would stack him up against the member's whole party.

Mr. Smith: What else does he do?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I use him every day. He is there and we use him every day. The member cannot say that about his helpers.

Mr. Riddell: He was used all right.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member asked how my letter got into the OMB files. The region subpoenaed one of my staff members. The director of the food land development branch, Mr. Vern Spencer, a very capable director, felt it was his responsibility to make all information available. He went through my file and sent to the region a copy of all the correspondence. I understand the region filed that as evidence. It is as simple as that. There was nothing given.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it not the case that what the minister has done is set a precedent under which, whenever it is a choice between respecting the food land guidelines or kowtowing to developers who want to pave over farm land and use it for urban purposes, even the Minister of Agriculture and Food of this province is going to abandon the food land guidelines, weak as they are?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I want this House to know that I do not know any of the property owners, any of the developers or any of the lawyers; not one of them.

Mr. Riddell: Your boss does.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: My boss gives me no orders whatsoever. I consider what I did to be the responsibility of a responsible minister in replying to another minister's request. The food land guideline is fully applied to this case.

GRANTS TO CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH CENTRES

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the impact of the provincial budget on grants to community mental health services, and more particularly to the Borough of York Child Guidance Clinic.

Since this clinic has seen its outpatients' load over the last four years grow from 1,971 to 3,806 -- double -- and since it requires a 13 per cent increase in grants to be able to maintain its existing services let alone meet great unmet needs, and yet the grants it is going to get under this new budget are only nine per cent -- I quote to the minister just one sentence from some material I have from the director: "If a distressed parent telephones that a 13-year-old child made a suicide attempt the previous night, it is extremely upsetting to be told that the earliest available appointment is two months down the line" -- would the minister not agree that is tragic to the point of being dangerous, and would he therefore reconsider the grant that will be made to this clinic, particularly since it falls within the catchment area of Queen Street Mental Health Centre where there is a very heavy load?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the honourable member go back and talk to whoever gave him the information. There will be a meeting involving the actual rate of the increase on June 4. No rate has been set and the member knows it.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the minister is saying. I have the documents that have been produced. Up until now it is nine per cent. Is the minister suggesting it is going to be more than nine per cent to at least meet the 13 per cent in order to maintain the current services? If he cannot suggest that, would he go to his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), who reminded the House just a week or so ago that half the savings from the closing of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital were going to be made available for the development of services in that very area, and tell him this is a clinic that should get funds to make certain it can maintain an expanded service?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I said -- and I trust the honourable member will understand now that it is the second time around, although I will make it the fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh if he cannot -- that there is a meeting on June 4 to determine the actual rate of increase for that children's mental health centre.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. In view of the fact that in the last two days additional information has become available with regard to the exorbitant profits some of the banks have made in the first quarter of 1981, I was wondering, or many of us are wondering, whether his ministry had any thought of expanding the role of the Province of Ontario Savings Office.

The number of provincial savings offices has remained almost constant over the past 16 years. When we make the comparison of the provincial savings office and Petro-Canada, I think perhaps having provincial savings offices in all parts of the city and in every part of the province would be a step in the right direction in keeping that sector in line, to put it mildly.

Has this ministry any plans afoot to expand the role of the provincial savings offices and ask authority, whether it be federal, provincial or whatever, to make them full-fledged banks?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, we have not been looking at this issue at this time. It is something worth investigating.

As I am sure all the honourable members know, the Province of Ontario Savings Offices are not chartered banks, nor in fact do they offer the services that are offered by chartered banks -- in other words, they are not in the loan business. I think all members would agree that, as has been noted, part of the growth and the profits of the chartered banks these days has come about because of their lending abilities, and we do not have those within the Province of Ontario Savings Offices.

With regard to the capabilities of changing them to broaden their scope, of course I think that would be in the purview of the federal government of Canada.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), but since he is not here today I will redirect that question to the Minister of Health. It concerns the dumping of radioactive fill from Scarborough in the vicinity of Bancroft in the Faraday township area.

Because of the possible health hazards in the plan, not only for that area but also downstream and in the Belleville area, and since in this particular case 40 tons of radioactive soil are involved -- however, a disposal location for approximately 250,000 tons of radioactive wastes from the Port Hope area has to be relocated -- can the minister assure this House that a precedent will not be set for the Madawaska mine site to become a permanent repository for low-level radioactive wastes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be best if I took that question as notice to my colleague the Minister of the Environment, and asked that he and his officials prepare an answer for the member as soon as possible.

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

With the permission of the House I would like to introduce to the members of the House the Honourable Ian Medcalf, ED, QC, MLC, Attorney General and Minister for Federal Affairs from Australia. I might clarify that he is from Perth, Western Australia.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Ministry administration program, $7,892,000; heritage conservation program, $15,510,100; arts support program, $41,204,900; citizenship and multicultural support program, $7,573,800; libraries and community information program, $13,588,800; sports and fitness program, $13,509,100; ministry capital support program, $34,298,500; translation services program, $462,300.

3:30 p.m.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Ministry administration program, $2,386,500; conventional energy program, $1,970,000; renewable energy program, $7,124,000; energy conservation program, $4,641,000; regulatory affairs program, $1,194,000.

CHANGE IN HOUR OF SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding standing order 3(a), the evening sitting on Tuesday, June 2, will begin at 9 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce four amendments to the Planning Act. Although a new Planning Act will be introduced this fall, these amendments are needed in the interim to smooth out the land division process.

Two of the amendments are to section 29 of the act dealing with subdivision control. A new subsection has been added to make orders by judges that allow for partition of land subject to the subdivision control provisions of section 29. Despite an amendment to the act in 1978, which required that the Minister of Housing be notified of such application for partition, subdivision controls have been circumvented by making application to judges under the Partitions Act.

With the amendment, people who obtain a judge's order will have to apply to the appropriate consent-granting committee for a land severance. Another new subsection to section 29 states that the mutual agreements between owners on drainage matters are not subject to subdivision control. Section 29 was not intended to require consent for drainage, but rather an approval from the appropriate authority under the Drainage Act.

The third amendment is to section 42(h) to allow the land division committees and committees of adjustment to increase application fees for consent in minor variances to a maximum of $100 from the current maximum of $50.

The final amendment relates to section 42(16) of the act. This section has been amended to state, "Where the Ontario Municipal Board hears an appeal from a decision of a committee of adjustment or land division committee, the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board is final."

As members are aware, such matters as minor variances and consents to sever land can now be petitioned to cabinet for further consideration. Since these matters affect only one or two property owners, it is more appropriate that the final appeals should be to the OMB rather than to the cabinet.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

PRESCRIBED BURNS SAFETY ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Wrye, first reading of Bill 87, An Act to ensure the Safety of Prescribed Burns in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that prescribed burns are conducted in a safe manner. The bill provides for the appointment of a fire safety officer who is required to examine each place at which it is intended to set a prescribed burn.

Prescribed burns are prohibited unless permission is first obtained from the fire safety officer. The fire safety officer must refuse permission if, in the opinion of the officer, it would not be safe to set the prescribed burn. The bill contains a provision that extends the application of the bill to the crown.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Wrye, first reading of Bill 88, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide protection against the sale of stolen property. The bill requires persons who deal in used goods to record the name and address of each person from whom they purchase used goods.

A dealer in used goods is prohibited from reselling the goods for a period of seven days after the date of purchase. If a dealer has reason to suspect that the used goods have been stolen, the dealer is under a duty to report the matter to the police.

LEADERS' QUESTIONS

Mr. Samis: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might call to your attention that today in question period, with our three leaders here, the back-benchers were able to ask four and a half questions, compared to Tuesday, when they were not here, and we asked 11 questions.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I took note of that, and I am in sympathy with you. However, I do not think it is a point of privilege, and I suggest you discuss it with your caucus.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TILE DRAINAGE

Mr. J. M. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve, resolution 5:

That this House urge the Ontario government through the Minister of Agriculture and Food to allocate sufficient resources to permit the reasonable financing of tile drainage loans to more readily meet the needs of Ontario farmers, and to advance the provincial program for completion of province-wide tile drainage installation on agricultural land which is inadequately drained, resulting in a reduction in productivity.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation, and he may reserve any portion of it for his windup.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, once again it gives me great pleasure to introduce to this House a resolution I proposed last fall but which was never brought forth for debate owing to the dissolution of parliament early in the new year.

I am sure every member of this House will agree that Ontario's farmers are one of the most enterprising, innovative and productive groups of our society today. At the same time, farmers rarely receive the public recognition they so justly deserve. This government realizes and understands fully the contribution farmers make, and we fully appreciate the unusual circumstance confronting farmers as we enter the 1980s: horrendous interest rates, unstable market conditions, rising fuel and production costs and, finally, the constant market war and cheap foreign produce.

There has been a lot said by honourable members from both sides of the House as to what government should do, whether it is land-use policy, or prices, or emergency assistance programs. We do not have time today to debate all the agricultural policies but, as a rural member, I wish to reaffirm my support to our Ontario farmers, and I hope this resolution contributes in some way to the productivity of our farm lands and to the economic wellbeing of our farmers.

3:40 p.m.

Ontario farmers earned just over 30 per cent of Canada's total farm cash receipts, adding a projected $4.5 billion to Ontario's economy in 1981. This is quite amazing when we consider the fact that only about four per cent of Ontario's population are actually farmers.

The continued vibrancy and expansion of the industry can best be achieved by developing new crops through research, by encouraging Ontarians to purchase Ontario-grown products, by increasing their export market and by improved farming efficiency and production. All of these programs and others introduced by this government have been designed to assist the farmers to do the thing that farmers do best, namely, produce and market food.

That is why for more than 100 years this province has encouraged farmers to increase productivity by improving the drainage of their land. When good drainage is added to good management practices, farmers can as much as double their agricultural capabilities. To date, drainage has been improved on about 3.2 million acres of land in Ontario. However, another three million acres still require improved drainage, and many of these acres are in my riding.

As a matter of fact, the reason I tabled this resolution was to bring the concerns of my farming constituents to this assembly. Every spring and fall I receive requests from many of my township councils for more money for the tile drainage program. I have 12 townships that require additional funding and have indicated their support for my resolution, including the county of Dufferin, the township of Nichol, the township of Pilkington, the township of Peel, East and West Luther, the town of Caledon, the county of Wellington and many more.

The reeve of West Luther, who is a very good friend, Jack Lennox, estimates that only 10 per cent of his township is tile drained and that 90 per cent of land in West Luther classified as class two and lower could be upgraded to class one land if it were tile drained. Another very good friend, the former reeve of East Luther, Wilfred West, told me that his father tile drained their farm in 1914 when Wilfred was 13 years old and that he never remembers a year when they were not able to harvest their crops.

Unfortunately, that is not true of all the farms in the Luthers. In my riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel many thousands of acres of land would and should be improved by tile drainage, and the sooner the better.

Mr. Martel: It makes sense. If only you could convince the government to do it.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I hope so.

The installation of the drainage system requires a large capital outlay for most farmers, but the improved drainage will greatly increase the productive capacity of our total agricultural industry and permit the expansion of high-value crops in areas where agricultural potential has not been fully realized. The resulting increase in usable land would substantially increase the farmers' potential income. In turn, this will mean additional food processing facilities, and that will contribute to the value of basic commodities, reduce the need for imports and create more jobs for the people of Ontario.

The increased yield with the installation of proper drainage occurs because various factors that influence plant growth are directly improved. Tile drainage increases the amount of air in the soil, resulting in higher soil temperature, better soil structure, greater soil bearing strength, faster drying of the soil and improved availability of several plant nutrients and increasing water-holding capacities of the soil.

From an agricultural point of view, the changes in the soil that result from tile drainage mean higher and more stable yields of better-quality crops, the capacity to introduce new crops, lower machinery and production costs, reduced erosion hazards, increased disease and weed control and energy conservation. Most important of all, it means earlier planting dates and a longer growing season.

Over the last few years, Ontario farmers have utilized the tile drainage program for financial assistance to a point where the demand for loans now far exceeds the available funds. The rate of installation is approaching 200,000 acres per year. This is a tremendous rate of installation and could only have been made possible with the introduction of plastic tubing and specially designed drainage ploughs in the late 1960s.

On this subject, I am pleased to mention to the members of the Legislature that the Tait brothers, John and Willard, of Grand Valley have designed a machine for laying tile that is much superior to most of the machines on the market today. They have already sold some of these machines in the United States and British Columbia, and I am working with the Ministry of Industry and Tourism in the hope that we can create an export market for the machines.

I have a letter from the Tait brothers. The Tait brothers are the tile experts in this part of the country. They live in the area of Grand Valley and East Luther township. In their letter, dated May 19, they mention that crops on drained fields in East Luther township are already planted and up, that undrained land is not planted yet as a result of poor drainage and that this will reduce the yield of crops by approximately 50 per cent.

I think that is true of much of the land in some parts of my riding. I hesitate to say some of them are wet and low lands, because one reeve took me to task. He said their lands are not really that bad. I answered, "If that is the case, why do you need tile drainage money?" If we call it high and dry, then we have a problem with gravel extraction.

In 1973, the level of assistance under the tile drainage program was just over $4 million. In 1974, the funding had almost doubled and in 1976 the funding had doubled again; the level of funding at that point was $16 million.

Restriction had to be introduced in the loan program limiting both the total expenditure by the government and the total level of assistance being offered to each farmer.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has budgeted $25 million for the program this year, yet the results of a survey taken throughout the province indicate the demand for loans this year is in excess of $50 million. We need more money in the tile drainage program. With a very reasonable interest rate set at eight per cent per annum, total funding for farmers is currently set at $20,000 a year, with the total outstanding balance limit at $60,000.

This is a matter of opinion, but I believe the support on a yearly basis is still too high with the funding we have available. I would prefer to have twice as many farmers receiving assistance, thus reducing the waiting list and having the installation of drains for each farmer spread over a longer time period. Each farmer would receive the same total level of assistance, but this would encourage more farmers to take the financial risk and become involved in the tile drainage program. Better still, if the funding could be increased, we would have even more positive results.

Crop insurance statistics for the year 1979 have indicated 55 per cent of the land planted in grain corn is not tiled. If the land were tiled, the production of corn in 1979 would have increased from 143 million bushels to 174 million bushels. At current corn prices, this exceeds $100 million per year. This could be added to the Ontario economy every year.

I am sure every member agrees we should encourage as many farmers as possible to become involved in the farm improvement program. At present, the government allocates funds to municipalities on the basis of past involvement in the program, and the ministry will reallocate funds based on the current year's applications.

I might mention that a letter dated May 15 says the minister has made a change in this program and that they are going to follow a new set of guidelines this year. I am not sure if it will be more beneficial or not; it remains to be seen.

3:50 p.m.

I believe the method of allocation we have had in the past does not encourage installation of drains in new undeveloped areas of the province, and I was encouraged by the throne speech announcement that greater emphasis will be given in the BILD program to the improvement of farms in northern and eastern Ontario.

I want to comment on the northern farmers. There was a paper presented to the agricultural seminar at the Skyline Hotel on February 4 and 5, sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson). The paper was presented by Claude Chartrand from the Timiskaming district. His paper is entitled Agriculture in the North. I want to read one page of this report.

Mr. Wildman: Best land in the province.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Is it part of the member's riding?

Mr. Wildman: No, but it is the best land in the province.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I want to quote from Mr. Chartrand's paper:

"Before looking ahead and making plans and establishing goals for the 1980s, I feel it is necessary to briefly look back at the changes that took place in the north in the 1970s. On our farm in the early 1970s we were producing 40 per cent less milk than today and farming approximately 600 acres. We were purchasing 10 per cent of our forage requirements and 60 per cent of the grain requirements for an 80-cow dairy herd. Grain production was considered only to the extent that when a hay field was ploughed down, grain was a nurse crop to help control weeds in re-establishing a hay field. The necessity of late seeding and late harvesting, with the possibility of an early frost or wet fall, made the production of small grains a big gamble.

"In 1974, we started systematically tile draining our farm. It was a decision hard to make considering that at the time we could buy two acres of land for the cost of tiling one acre. We presently have 480 acres tile drained. With tile drainage, alfalfa became a very interesting alternative to trefoil, red clover and timothy. We are now getting three cuts of alfalfa in the form of haylage per year, the first cut around the second week of June, the second cut around the first week of August and the third cut around the second week of October. This is not a general practice in the area; a two-cut system is more popular.

"Feeding our herd haylage year round and switching to alfalfa has more than doubled our forage yields per acre and cut the nitrogen requirements for our forage. We also produce all the grain needed for a 90-cow dairy herd and have approximately 150 tons of barley for sale. These changes at our farm have also taken place at many other dairy farms in our area.

"Tile drainage and research in early seeding made at the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology in New Liskeard have also changed the picture of grain production in the north. We now prepare the soil for seeding in the fall, and in the last four years we have started seeding between May 6 and May 10. We have cleared and tiled 140 acres of land in the last five years -- land that was so wet it would not even grow trees. In some areas, the muck soil was over 20 feet deep. Our extension branch office estimates that over 20,000 acres of land was cleared in the past five to six years.

"I must point out again that the changes in our farming operation are general in the district of Timiskaming and no doubt the potential is there in many other regions of the north."

Another problem with the current allocation system is that too often one or two large farmers in each municipality use most of the funds allocated to that municipality. Many municipalities have realized this problem and have set limits on loans for individual farmers, thus providing assistance to more farmers. However, with the record high interest rates we are now experiencing in Canada, young farmers or smaller farm operators needing the help are having difficulty raising the rest of the financing. They may decide not to install drains at all.

I believe that in this period of severe financial pressure everyone in Ontario, including this government and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, should be encouraging the farmers to install drains 20 to 30 acres at a time. This would mean spreading the total installation period over five or six years instead of the two or three years that is the case in some municipalities. I believe this is one solution to the problem. Of course, the best solution would be to increase the funding.

The ultimate goal of this government is to achieve a strong, stable agricultural industry and to see that Ontario attains food self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. Over the years, this government has tried to develop a partnership that has produced policies and programs designed to help farmers help themselves. The Ontario tile drainage program is one of these programs.

The goals of both the farmers and the government can be realized in the near future if sufficient resources to complete the installation of tile drainage in Ontario are allocated, thus reducing the present waiting list. If the loans to the farmers are provided at the present reasonable interest rates on a long-term payment schedule, overall farm productivity will improve and Ontario will realize its goals in agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to reserve any time. There are nine members who would like to speak; so I will forgo the rest of my time.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I was just about to ask that. Mr. Riddell.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel as one person on that side of the House who does take an interest in the agricultural industry in Ontario.

Perhaps this resolution is the result of a commitment the member made to the farm people in his riding during the recent election campaign in which he was trying to hold his own with the Liberal candidate, Elbert van Donkersgoed. The latter, without doubt, would have far more knowledge about the agricultural industry by virtue of the fact he has been an active member of the Christian Farmers' Federation.

My other suspicion was that the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel had some insight into the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's future programs. If the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) at any time would indicate he was going to provide more funding for tile drainage, then the member could have gone back to his riding and said to the farm community, "Look what I have been able to do for you."

However, I think those of us who are going to be addressing this resolution are whistling in the dark.

As indicated in my question to the minister today, he has sent a letter to all the municipalities throughout Ontario encouraging them to reduce the percentage of loan which the farmers can get to 50 per cent of the total cost rather than the traditional 75 per cent.

That is in contradiction to the promises made in this Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, in that it was indicated we should be putting more land into production, particularly in eastern and northern Ontario.

It was my colleague the member for Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) who first drew my attention to this letter the minister had sent saying the government was going to cut the farmers back in tile drainage. So these promises are in complete contradiction to what is actually taking place.

I am certainly not holding my breath waiting for more assistance to the farmers from this government. Once again, the percentage of the total provincial budget devoted to agriculture has decreased.

In the 1980-81 budget, the expenditure for agriculture amounted to $184 million of a total provincial budget of $16.8 billion, or expressed as a percentage it amounted to 1.09 per cent. In the 1981-82 budget, the expenditure for agriculture amounted to $191 million out of a total provincial budget of $18.99 million, or exactly one per cent of the total provincial budget.

This indicates to me that any change in the funding for tile drainage will be insignificant compared with the amount needed if the goal is, as the minister has stated from time to time, to make Ontario more self-sufficient in food production. We can do this only by increasing the productivity of our agricultural land, and I know of no other program than drainage that has a more dramatic effect on improving productivity of land while at the same time reducing the energy requirement for land preparation, planting and harvesting of a crop.

4 p.m.

Under the Tile Drainage Act, municipalities lend money at low interest for draining agricultural land and issue debentures to the Treasurer of Ontario. In 1979-80, loans totalling approximately $30 million were made for 3,592 drainage projects. These loans were issued at six per cent annual interest. In 1980-81, loans totalling $27 million -- that is $3 million less -- have been committed. The interest rates on debentures were increased to eight per cent per annum. The maximum loan that an individual farmer can receive is $20,000, and loans to individuals are not to exceed 75 per cent of the cost of the project.

The $20,000 limit per farmer per year is very restrictive. As costs continue to rise, this $20,000 becomes less beneficial to the individual farmer. Likewise, this limit is counterproductive to the larger farming businesses. I can appreciate that the government is trying to spread the amount of money it is prepared to allocate for drainage among as many farmers as possible. However, I do not feel we should penalize the efficient and successful large farmers.

Going back to the days of the select committee that made a study of the farming industry in Ontario and reported to the government in a publication entitled The Challenge of Abundance. farmers were encouraged to expand their operation so that they could more favourably compete on the world market by achieving the lowest possible cost of operation of their business. Many farmers in Ontario have expanded the size of their operation only to find that they are now limited in the amount of money they can borrow under the tile drainage program to drain their land.

Inadequate drainage, of course, is the one limiting factor to increased productivity and efficiency, and I personally do not think there should be a limit of $20,000 per farmer per year or a maximum drainage loan for any one farmer of $60,000.

I encourage the member to urge his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food to change the drainage loan policy and, rather than imposing limits, he should increase the funding for this program so that limits would not be necessary.

While the act reads that townships are permitted to lend up to 75 per cent of the drainage costs, not to exceed $20,000 per farmer per year or a maximum of $60,000 per farmer, many townships use various means to spread the money available to them over as many farmers as possible.

Some townships limit the farmers to 50 per cent of their total drainage costs, and other townships limit the maximum loan for individual farmers each year to a fixed amount. Several townships in the area I represent, when asked to comment on the tile drainage program, indicated in general a lack of funds to meet the demand.

Whereas Blanshard township seems to have no problem with its allocation and it is always up to date on its loan application, Bosanquet township, in the Minister of Agriculture and Food's riding, is always short of funds and behind in its loan application.

Colborne township is always short. East Williams township is struggling to meet the requirement. Fullarton township is always short. This year, Fullarton has more applications for drain loans than ever. Ellice township is always short.

Hay township is always short. As a matter of fact, in 1980 Hay township's allocation was only $193,000 and it could have used $400,000. Hay township did receive an additional 1980 fund of $38,000 in March, but that lapse of funding presented a hardship to the farmers as they had to borrow the money from the bank at a high rate of interest.

If the 1981-82 allocation from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is the same as it has been in the past for Hay township, there will never be enough funds, since the township already has a backlog of undebentured invoices in the amount of $108,000.

Hullett township so far has been able to cover all requests with the extra March allocation. McKillop township is short for the first time, with $80,000 carried over for the 1981 allocation. Stanley township allowed only a $6,000 loan per 100 acres per year and therefore it is able to stay within its allocation. Stephen township seems to be able to stay within its allocation, but it limits farmers to $300 per acre, which is roughly 75 per cent of the cost of tiling an acre of land today. Usborne township has been able to meet its loan applications only when it gets the second allocation in March.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there are many farmers who have to borrow money from the banks at high interest rates because there is insufficient money available under the tile drainage program.

Some townships seem to be in a more favourable position than others, but I do not think it was the government's intention to penalize the farmer because he happens to farm in a township where funds are limited. Once again, if the basic money available from the government to the townships was increased, all townships could provide the farmers with the same amount of money irrespective of where they live.

I have alluded to the fact that townships receive widely different allocations and it is my contention the method of allocating money among the townships should be updated. It is my belief the government would like to see all farms upgraded to their maximum productive potential. However, those farmers living in townships which have not done much drainage in the past are not given an opportunity to benefit very significantly from the government's tile drainage program.

The township that has not previously had much drainage work done is given a small allocation ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 a year. If only one farmer decided to drain in that township, the township's entire allocation could be used up. What happens to the second or third farmer in that township who would like to drain his land as well?

I realize that Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food personnel in Toronto check with each township towards the last half of the drainage season to see which townships have unused portions of this year's allocations. They attempt to redistribute this money to townships which have used up all of their allocations. Unfortunately, most township clerks try to hoard their allocations even though they have not used them.

This is counter-productive, as the townships and farmers requiring drainage loan funds never really find out until it is too late whether such funds are forthcoming. At today's cost of financing a business with borrowed money from the banks, I cannot see a farmer going ahead with a drainage project without knowing whether he is going to get a loan under the drainage program.

It was indicated in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, already alluded to, that through land clearing efforts, selective drainage and farmstead improvements, one million acres of farm land in eastern and northern Ontario is capable of being upgraded into high quality agricultural land. To achieve such production, BILD indicated Ontario would establish an acreage improvement fund which would provide financing at favourable rates.

There was no mention of this fund in the recent budget, yet there is an increased interest on the part of farmers in the development of farm land in eastern and northern Ontario. How can the farmers upgrade their land through drainage when they do not have ready access to drainage loans?

It does not seem right that a southern Ontario farmer can get $20,000 per year from southern municipalities which in some cases were able to meet their requirements, whereas the northern municipality gets barely enough allocation for one farmer to drain his land by virtue of the fact the allocations are based on historical drainage trends within the township.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The honourable member made an accusation a few minutes ago that I introduced this resolution during the election campaign. He knows full well I introduced this in the last session, in November. I resent the implication it was introduced as a political manoeuvre.

The Deputy Speaker: I do not think any of your parliamentary privileges were abridged, but you had the opportunity of making the point.

Mr. Riddell: I would like to know what government assistance programs are available to the northern or eastern farmer for clearing his land, if we consider that the $400 million committed over five years under the government BILD program to the resources sector, which includes agriculture, forestry and mining, could be used entirely on the drainage program for the one million acres.

Suspicions of government commitment to increased tile drainage are further supported by the fact there was no commitment to increase tile drainage loans in the throne speech or in the budget. I guess my time is up, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: That's right, it is.

Mr. Riddell: I did have a little more I wanted to say.

The Deputy Speaker: I know, you always do. Your time is up.

Mr. Riddell: I thank the member for his resolution and I heartily support his endeavour.

The Deputy Speaker: Terrific. Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. MacDonald: He is a hard man to stop, isn't he, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: He sure is.

Mr. MacDonald: For the record, I want to make certain it is noted that a few moments ago my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) said, "We are with you, Jack; we just hope the government will provide the funds," or some such phrase as that. Jack responded: "I hope so, too."

I think that rather sets the context for this debate. It is encouraging that we have a bit of a minor revolt on the back benches of the Conservative Party with regard to the inadequacy of tile drainage. There is an awful lot of talk about it, an awful lot of rhetoric associated with it. But clearly the people who come from ridings that are mainly rural are pressuring to a point where objections are being raised here from the government side of the House as well as from this side of the House.

4:10 p.m.

However, let us get right down to the bottom line, and then I will go back and document the bottom line. If the objective that the honourable member has in his resolution is going to succeed -- and the objective, of course, is commendable; it should be supported -- then this government must at least -- I underline at least -- double the amount of money that is now available for tile drainage.

So every time you listen to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, when somebody talks about tile drainage and the amount of money, go back and repeat the figures. I will put them on the record just so you can have them. In the last six years the amount of money in debentures was $16 million, $16 million, $18 million, $17 million, $29 million, and $25 million. In addition, there was an increased subsidy ranging from $1.9 million to $3.4 million. In other words, roughly $25 million to $30 million is being spent.

I repeat that in order to meet the objective -- and there is no point in praising the government when it is so far away from meeting the objective -- the government must at least double the amount of money available. But it is not in the budget, so the government may well have introduced its resolution last November in preparation for the election. That was a good political move, I can see that: the honourable member knew who his opponent was and he knew he was going to be a farm spokesman. Do not chastise anybody for saying it was politically motivated; of course it was politically motivated. The member is not playing tiddly-winks; he is in the game of politics, and he has some farmers in his area so he introduces the motion. However, it has a lot to do with the motion.

Let me just quickly repeat figures that have already been put on the record, because I want to refresh the members' minds about the context. As has been pointed out, according to the ministry's own estimates 3.2 million acres have been tile drained in this province and there are three million acres to be tiled. I will come back to that in a moment with an addendum -- what I would call the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development addendum.

At the moment, improvements are going on at the rate of about 200,000 acres a year. However, one has to stop and realize that this does not mean the government is tiling 200,000 new acres each year, because on the average half of it is being used for maintenance, or -- I do not know the correct term -- to twin the tiling that used to be 40 feet apart and that now they are making 20 feet apart, and things of that nature. So only 100,000 acres of new land is being tiled; in the other 100,000 acres they are maintaining or upgrading the existing tiling.

It is interesting to note the variations in the different counties. For example, in Essex, 50 per cent of the tile is new and the other 50 per cent is for maintenance; in Kent, 38 per cent of the tile is new and 62 per cent is for maintenance; in Lambton, 84 per cent of it is new and only 16 per cent is for maintenance. So you have a real problem of catching up, of upgrading and maintaining what you have and then proceeding in order to get at these three million acres that still remain to be tiled.

In fact, given the technological life expectancy of drainage -- it would be about 20 years, I am told by experts in the field -- the rate of tiling must at least be doubled from 200,000 to 400,000 acres in order to bring all the tileable farm land under drainage before the year 2000. On the basis of this year's budget there is no prospect that this is going to happen. They are standing still, for practical purposes, in coming to grips with the three million acres that have yet to be tiled.

All of this is a reminder of the plan as we envisaged it in terms of retiling required up until now, but we have to take a look at the government's own projections in terms of expanding, even though they are not providing the money.

As has been pointed out earlier this afternoon in another context, in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program for upgrading farm land it says, "Through land clearing efforts, selective drainage and farmstead improvements, one million acres of farm land in eastern and northern Ontario are capable of being upgraded into high quality agricultural land."

The figures I have given, of three million acres that need to be tiled and the requirement for doubling the existing budget to be able to do it between now and the year 2000, do not include this one million acres in eastern and northern Ontario which were added to the program.

I say to my friend who has brought in this resolution that it is a noble resolution; it is a noble objective; I can understand why he is bringing it in, because there obviously has to be a lot more ferment and a lot more push from within the ranks of the government. They do not listen to us on this side of the House as much as they should. There has to be a lot more on that side of the House, otherwise they are not going to be able to meet the objectives of the tileage program as we have known it; they are not going to be able to meet the objectives of the expanded tileage program that is envisaged in BILG -- BILD, rather.

Mr. Wildman: Bilge is a good name for it.

Mr. MacDonald: That was a Freudian error. The BILD program, and therefore the objective that is beyond the tiling -- for which it is the facilitator, so to speak -- the objective of achieving an increase in production and self-sufficiency in terms of production within Ontario and reversing the tendency to import more and more of our food, that objective is not going to be fulfilled.

I endorse the resolution that has been brought in. I emphasize that it means doubling the budget at the present time -- indeed, it means more than doubling the budget to encompass what is in BILD, and therefore it is idle for government members to bring in this if they cannot get it back into their caucus and talk turkey to those people who have their hands on the moneybags of the province.

That puts the case as succinctly as I would like to and as I can, Mr. Speaker. There are others who want to speak, so I shall thank you and sit down.

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support my colleague in this resolution. Although it is very easy to criticize, I realize the importance of good drainage, because we had crop failures in 1972 and in 1974 in eastern Ontario.

First of all, the farmers in my constituency alone have invested over $20 million in open ditch drainage, but those who have tiled show beyond any doubt, even in those wet years, that they had a crop they could harvest, whereas the others were an absolute failure.

I have to agree with my colleagues on the other side that there is not sufficient money being placed in tile drainage. This is not a handout, it is an accommodation that will help people help themselves. It is very true that we will have to secure a portion of the interest rate, which, after all, is very small in relation to the increased productivity it will give to the farmers who are operating those farms.

Twenty years ago we had problems growing anything in eastern Ontario except forage corn for silage, but a new species came out which took a shorter period of time to mature, and the result today is that we have many grain growing producers. Of recent years there has been a new species of soybean that takes a shorter period of time to mature.

There is a distinction between the eastern and western sections of the province as far as growing days go -- somewhere in the neighbourhood of eight to 10 days at least. That is why it has not been able to be harvested as a profitable crop. But drainage is essential, according to experts who have tried it and produced good paying crops.

4:20 p.m.

Therefore, I submit that even if a supplementary budget is necessary for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, this is the time to do it. After all, the interest rates the average individual has to pay almost prohibit undertaking indebtedness of this kind. Some $20 million has been spent on open ditch drainage in my area, most of it in the last 10 years, and most of the farmers there are still paying on some debenture issues on that. Therefore this is something that is essential. I repeat, if it is necessary to put through a supplementary in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's budget we should do it, because now is when the demand is.

I had a letter today about this, and I think the allocation in my area is something like $68,000 -- they are promised the other $68,000 somewhere around the latter part of August. But there are almost $700,000 in applications and these are not from people who had tile drainage before; they are requesting tile drainage for the first time.

I repeat: it is helping people to help themselves. After all, it will only be a small assistance in the way of interest rates towards these people who are obligating themselves -- they are honest enough to repay a debt. And if given the opportunity they will help the production of agriculture, not only in this province but in this country.

We in eastern Ontario at one time used to import 75 per cent of our coarse grains. Today it is down to 25 per cent. If we can grow the soybeans on well-drained soil it will be down to at least 10 per cent. This makes a great difference in the operation of a family farm, or a farm of any kind, when one is paying off other obligations. Naturally the whole community prospers by having a prosperous agricultural community.

I strongly support my colleague in this resolution. I will go so far as to say I would strongly support a supplementary bylaw for more money if necessary, because I think the time to help them is now.

Mr. Ruston: I want to speak briefly on this, Mr. Speaker, and I want to support wholeheartedly the resolution we are debating, presented by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.

I come from an area that is pretty flat country. Many years ago the farmers saw the problems that were created when we started farming in that area. It is interesting to go back a little in history -- and I see a little smile on the face of the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), who I understand is a farmer. I once heard my father and others talking about a farmer who would plough in the fall to get a small furrow in the ground. Then in his spare time all fall he would dig a trench about another foot deep and lay tile in it by hand. That was done in some areas and apparently some of the tiles are still there and still draining. The ones put in by hand have probably been there for 50 or 60 years.

Later someone invented a system of a metal chisel plough type of thing that had a knob at the bottom. They would pull that through the soil about 15 or 16 inches deep. They found that, because of the traction from pulling it through, it would leave a little hole. In some areas they found that would even drain the soil to some extent. So before there were any machines around, the farmers were trying to drain in many different ways, especially in the area we were in where the ground was so flat and had very poor drainage. Even at that time, they were trying their best to overcome the flooding problem.

Now, with the new chisel plough, they are not even using trenches in many areas. Last Friday, I noticed that a large field was done in my area. They do it so fast now with this new machine. It leaves about 15 inches of rough soil on top and the rest is where the tile itself goes. They are using mostly plastic tile in our area and apparently it is very smooth and does a good job. It is done very speedily now, compared to how long it took many years ago.

I can recall at the beginning of the Depression, when I was about 10 years old, my father bought a 100-acre farm. We had some other land but he bought that one at the time. He walked over the whole field. I was with him all the time and on all occasions, coming from a single parent family, the first thing he said was, "Son, we are going to tile this farm before we put a plough into it." Within two weeks he had the 100 acres tiled and then we went ahead and worked it.

That was 50 or 51 years ago. That farm has been retiled since. We tiled pretty far apart in those days, about four rods or 60 feet. Now most of the land in our area is tiled two rods apart.

The need for it is great. I think it was back in 1969 that we had the big floods in our area and the Minister of Agriculture and Food at that time, Mr. Stewart, made a tour of the area. It was a terrible situation. We are better protected now, because in the 10 years since then, many of the farms have been tiled and retiled. It takes an awful lot of money -- we are all aware of that -- but it is the only way farmers can be sure of a crop. There is crop insurance, but the farmer still wants to be sure he has done everything he can to make sure he gets a crop. He is not one to depend on insurance. He wants to be sure he has done everything he can to make sure he gets a crop. By having his land properly tiled, he can insure himself that way.

I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) is under a great deal of pressure now but I must say I am a little disappointed in his actions to date as the Minister of Agriculture and Food for Ontario. I know he rants and raves about the federal Minister of Agriculture and that is the political system. He can rant and rave but he also has a responsibility to his own people and I think he must admit to that. He is the Minister of Agriculture and Food for Ontario and his responsibility is to help the farmers of Ontario when they need assistance. I think he has to go to cabinet and use his clout to get his way.

If we were on the other side of the House and the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) was our Minister of Agriculture and Food, I think my leader, who is sitting in the front row, would have quite a time turning him down when he insisted that we find some money for the farmers. I do not think my leader could say no to that auctioneer's voice and his determination to see that we have plenty of food in Ontario and Canada. I am sure the member would have a lot of clout in cabinet.

I just want to say that I am wholeheartedly in support of the resolution. I would hope, as the previous speaker said, it will mean an additional budget for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In looking over that budget for 1980, 1981 and 1982, the minister has not increased it by very much. It is a very little increase over the previous year. That does not bode well for the farmers of Ontario. The minister should look at that. If he does have to supply another $10 or $15 million -- and the interest rate difference is what he is paying, so it is not all that much, he is getting eight per cent back -- all the members on both sides should support this resolution, and action should be taken on it as soon as possible.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the resolution, for many of the reasons outlined by the other members, especially my friend, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve). I commend the member for reintroducing this resolution. I believe he introduced it in the last Parliament some time in November, but we never got to debate it on the floor of the House.

I think the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) brought out the point I want to stress in my brief remarks; that is, the question of cost. I think everybody supports the program and the intention. I hope if the government dares to say: "Sorry, there is no money for this. Yes, it is a good idea. We believe in tile drainage, but there isn't the money," the farming community of this province and the member who presented the resolution will make the government defend its record. The fact is it spent $275 million on goodies in this recent election campaign. It gave away $100 million in the last year to the pulp and paper companies of the province. It has forgone over $200 million in tax revenues by various depreciation allowances and holidays and privileges given to the manufacturing sector in particular.

The government has spent over $280 million on the North Pickering project; $47 million on Townsend and probably a lot more to come; $37 million on South Cayuga; $14 million on those nebulous advertisements prior to the election and still going on, "Preserve it, conserve it"; and $11 million on the infamous Minaki project. That is not to mention the amount of money that has been invested in Wesleyville and Lennox and the costs involved in closing down those two operations.

I trust the farmers of Ontario will realize the money definitely is there. The fact that the government has spent over half a billion dollars on other things proves it is there. I am for this resolution. I believe the farming community today regards tile drainage as a major problem, but the single greatest problem facing the farmers today is the crushing burden of our sky-high interest rates. The fact that farm bankruptcies are up 77 per cent this year indicates how serious the problem really is. This government has refused to do anything serious, anything substantial, or anything to really try to help the farmers caught in this squeeze. That policy is a real disgrace and betrayal of our rural community.

In question period on Tuesday, my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) compared the record of this government with that of Quebec in terms of, first of all, overall spending on agriculture and, second, the assistance programs for farmers, especially in dealing with interest. He pointed out that Quebec had seven distinct interest assistance programs, along with the subsidies for livestock producers which are not paralleled by programs in this province. That stands out as this government's record.

In terms of the overall burden of interest rates, in reading an article in Time magazine last week, I was struck by one sentence in particular, in the May 18 edition, talking about the future of interest rates in the United States, the reserve board, et cetera. I quote: "Meanwhile, the effects of interest rates, which are as high as those once charged by Mafia loan sharks to their least credit-worthy customers, ripple through the economy."

To their least credit-worthy customers go Mafia-level rates. That is what the farmers of Ontario are facing today. We know bank profits are sky-rocketing, despite those smooth advertisements in the paper today, despite the denials that these are only temporary and things will level out as the year goes on. We in this party offered a program that would tax those excess profits, which would mean money could become available for things such as tile drainage and special assistance programs for the farmers.

But the Premier (Mr. Davis) of this province got up in the House this week and said his government's policy was not to tax them, not to touch them, to let the banks get away with whatever they could, the sky was the limit. The farmers were expecting some form of assistance in the budget, whether it was tile drainage or the interest problem. Again they were bitterly disappointed. In fact, the farmers of Ontario, like other citizens of Ontario, are hit with higher taxes on their incomes, higher OHIP premiums, higher fuel costs, and higher alcohol and tobacco costs. The whole ripple effect of that on the economy means a higher cost of living for our farmers. Our corporations got off scot-free from this government. The farmers should remember that.

Interest rates are a crushing burden on our farmers. I believe this government should come to their aid, probably along the lines suggested by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture which has advanced a fairly reasonable and constructive series of alternatives. It advanced a short-term program, an interim program and a long-term program.

The short-term program, if I may quote briefly, is an eminently reasonable one. For example, it wanted the suspension of foreclosures and forced liquidations so that, "all cases be referred to an independent review agency before a banker or creditor may exercise his power of sale or foreclosure." The OFA also urged that, "the review process be backed by an emergency rescue program where the government would guarantee refinancing for farmers at rates of approximately eight per cent."

This would make the farm operation viable. It says, "that a portion of the farmer's debt be considered for forgiveness so as to bring the debt load to a manageable level for a long-term viability of operation with a possible alternative to bankruptcy." I think the long-term program is a feasible one, as well as the interim program.

That is something that would have helped the farmers of Ontario to cope with the crushing burden of interest rates.

I emphasize again that I support the resolution. I think its intentions are good, but the primary responsibility of this government now is to help farmers cope with the crushing burden of interest rates. If we had a fair tax system as well, the funds would be available for the worthwhile projects advocated by the member.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on the proposal put forth by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. It is good to see there are some members on the government side of the House who are concerned about agriculture. The response up to this point of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) to the basic policy that has been put forth indicates clearly the government of this province does not really care all that much about the agricultural industry or about how important a role it plays on behalf of Ontario and Canada.

Ontario food production has been declining because 15 years ago Ontario farmers produced more beef, poultry, pork, eggs, dairy products and vegetables than we could eat. This is no longer the case. Ontario accounts for between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of Canada's imports of vegetables and products which total about $1.5 billion.

A good example is the decision to use South Cayuga in my riding. There are 12,000 acres of good class one and two agricultural land which, because it is not properly drained, had its classification dropped under the new classification to class one, two, three and four land. If this government were really responsible in wanting to ensure we have adequate food production and adequate land for our young people to work in the future, it would certainly be taking a second look at that piece of property, would preserve it for agricultural land and would improve the drainage.

As the member pointed out, drainage is so important. The future use of that land depends on good drainage. That area is a good example of what has been neglected over the years. They have not had the opportunity to have that tile drainage provided because it has been allocated on the basis of previous use.

Haldimand-Norfolk in particular has had little tile drainage. I have a farm myself. We discussed this and thought about it for many years but we never used it until last year. My nephew put in tile drainage on clay land. It was done by using gravel and tile together. This spring it has paid off. I think South Cayuga could be an example if the government proceeded to use it on an experimental basis to show what could be done. It would affect that whole area of Ontario because we have the second-best heat units in Canada.

We have adequate water supplies. It is a natural. We have all kinds of industrial development going on. We can do without the use of this for a waste disposal site. I hope the members on that side of the House will try to influence the Minister of Agriculture and Food at least to take a look at that land and reassess it because it represents the future for our younger generation.

4:40 p.m.

It is no wonder our young people are leaving Ontario and moving to western Canada where there are job opportunities. This government has seen fit to get into land development themselves, to take away the rights of our young people so that they cannot get their hands on anything. What do they do? They go where the opportunities are the best. As our House leader indicated the other day, Quebec has many programs to assist their farmers. What does this government have? Nothing. It will not even come up with an interest assistance program for farmers when they are going down the drain.

They put tax on tobacco, increase it on a percentage basis so they will not have to come back to the House, taking $350 million directly into the Ontario revenue fund. Why could they not use some of that money for drainage improvements? The spin-off effects would not only help the farmers but would help the machine manufacturers. It would stimulate the economy as a whole and I believe that is the role for agriculture.

I want to commend the member for bringing this forward. I just hope in a few weeks when I have an opportunity of bringing in my own resolution, we will try to get young farmers back on the land and that the government will see fit to give some support to the agriculture industry as a whole in Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Mr. Wildman.

Mr. Wildman: Could you tell me how much time I have?

The Acting Speaker: A minute.

Mr. Wildman: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will indicate I am in support of this resolution. I would like to defend the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel against the slurs placed against him by certain members, because I know he has been a strong supporter of tile drainage for his area and other areas of eastern Ontario and northern Ontario for many years, as long as he has been in the House.

Frankly, I wish the Minister of Agriculture and Food had the same commitment to agriculture that the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel demonstrates. Only one per cent of the total budget is allocated to agriculture. As the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) indicated, if we are really going to live up to that so-called promise in the BILD program to develop the one million acres available in eastern and northern Ontario for tile drainage, we are going to have to more than double the present amount allocated for the tile drainage loans. There just does not seem to be any commitment on the part of the government for that kind of program. I wish the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel luck in persuading the cabinet to keep the promise of BILD.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

ENERGY PROGRAM

Mr. Smith moved resolution 6:

That this House disagrees with the government's continuing emphasis on electrical generation by nuclear power stations, and in particular the acceleration of construction of the Darlington plant, despite evidence which shows that such additional electricity will not be needed; and that this House believes that there should be a redirection of government funds to encourage conservation programs, as well as a massive program to develop alternative energy sources such as fuel alcohol for internal combustion engines.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we live in such difficult times I suspect when most of us pick up the newspaper each day we get the feeling there is probably no government anywhere in North America, or possibly even in the free world, that really understands what is happening to us in economic terms. Governments are flailing about with high interest rate policies and monetarist solutions and some are advocating low interest rate policies. Frankly I suspect most of us feel the average citizen and even the average legislator is just along for the ride. There is a certain feeling of helplessness one gets.

The interest rates and the economic problems are largely North American, if not worldwide. In Canada the very least one could say is they are federal policies, although they are just made in Washington anyway. It could legitimately be argued that the provincial government does not have its hands on all that many levers in terms of ways to affect the economic well-being of a society which is being buffeted by forces such as we have not known since the 1930s.

There is one area, however, where the province has an enormous opportunity, by making the right decision, to affect the lives of our own people, not only for now but maybe for a generation or two. It could increase employment and utilize the scarce resources we have intelligently. The wrong decisions can place us in enormous debt, can utilize our resources so inefficiently as to leave us paying for our mistakes maybe to the end of this century, if not beyond. I am very pleased, therefore, that the Minister of Energy has taken time to come to the House to hear my remarks, and I thank him for taking that time. I hope we may have the opportunity for dialogue on the matter. The resolution I have presented today should not be regarded in any way as anti-nuclear. My own belief is that nuclear energy is here to stay. While I am sure many of us are frightened of the implications of waste disposal, and many of us feel that perhaps the entire business is incompletely understood, I doubt very much that we can turn back the clock or that we should wish to do that. I, for one, accept that nuclear energy is part of our energy mix, and I am pleased we have nuclear energy. I want to be very clear about that.

What I take exception to, what I take issue with, is the notion of devoting billions of dollars to the construction of a single nuclear station -- namely Darlington -- when even a fraction of that money utilized in more creative ways could actually create more energy. It could not only create more energy but energy of a sort better suited to the real needs of Ontario. I truly believe if we persist in borrowing some $6 billion to $10 billion, which is likely to be the eventual bill for Darlington -- most of which will probably end up borrowed on the American market, but even if here the interest rates will not be a whole lot different -- if we insist on putting ourselves into debt a billion dollars or more a year for the construction of a plant that is not needed, then future generations will rue the day that mistake was made.

I want, therefore, to discuss in the presence of my friend, the Minister of Energy, alternative uses for that money. I do not want to gainsay the efforts made by the minister to move into the fields of alternative energy sources. There has been some recent increase in funds devoted to those matters and I know he personally is interested in the development of these areas. I would ask him to be honest with himself, however, and recognize that the amount being spent on energy sources it should be investigating and promoting is 2.3 per cent of the cost of Darlington itself. This is not even counting the cost of the debt we will incur in borrowing to build Darlington, but just speaking of the capital expense itself. Put another way, the government is spending 44 times as much on Darlington as it is on alternative transportation fuels, renewables and conservation -- in fact, 88 times as much on Darlington itself as on alternative transportation fuels.

We do not have an energy crisis in Ontario. I have stood and said this in this House year after year. We have an oil problem in Ontario and the notion that we have to spend billions of dollars and speed up the spending of these billions of dollars on an already overbuilt electrical generation system is, to put it charitably, crazy when the problem we have is not with electricity. The problem we have is with oil and particularly with oil as it is used in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel to move vehicles about the roads and streets of this province.

4:50 p.m.

Any effort we make to continue overbuilding an already overbuilt system will not solve that problem. For reasons I do not understand my friends at the Globe -- with whom I see eye to eye on some matters lately, strangely enough -- seem to be totally taken with this nuclear alternative and electricity itself. I simply cannot fathom why it makes sense to build Darlington when any reasonable forecast and any sensible way of looking into the future tells us we will still be 25 per cent over the 25 per cent reserve even including Darlington. We do not need an additional generation plant.

Members do not have to take my word for it. They can take the word of the Ministry of Energy itself, in writing off $160 million when it shut down Wesleyville. I know the Minister of Energy in his private life would be as frugal as I and would think twice about even writing off $1.60 let alone $160 million. But he said about Wesleyville -- which was to be an oil-fired plant when studies show that it could have been used as a coal-fired plant -- there would be no need for that generation capacity. If there is no need for Wesleyville, why is there a need for Darlington? The fact remains that these billions of dollars should be used in other ways.

There is one more point I want to make. That is that nuclear plants -- and the minister understands this I know -- are most efficiently used for base loads. When it is winter or late night or whatever and we have peaking demands, we have to fire up the coal plant. At this very moment when people use electric heat it is the coal plants basically providing that electricity because it is being peaked in winter. The nuclear electricity is used as base load, as is the hydraulic -- as I am sure the minister understands.

To try to justify nuclear on the basis of home heating is to use nuclear in the most inefficient way imaginable. To try to use nuclear somehow as a peaking device -- starting and stopping the plants -- will be grossly inefficient. Hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars will be wasted in the attempt to do so.

What we must look at in Ontario is an energy policy based on two basic concepts. Once we accept that electricity is very important but that we have enough of it, the basic concepts are conservation and alternative fuels. We should seize the opportunities now to move into the area of conservation as a source of energy in itself. When we save a kilowatt it is just the same as if we have produced or generated a kilowatt. We must do what the municipalities of Ontario recently asked and put conservation on a basis that is equal to the generation of energy. We should give it the money, resources, and personnel it requires.

I will not get into a discussion of the ads. They are very amusing and all, but that is not a conservation program. A conservation program requires very significant investments of money, but far less than the building of a nuclear plant. In fact, if we were serious we would find that with conservation, for every dollar we would invest we would save $4 in fuel of one kind or another.

Look at Ontario's policy. The lack of commitment is epitomized by the fact that since 1973 the United States has cut its overall energy consumption by more than 13 per cent, while Ontario's overall energy consumption has continued to grow. The US is far from the world's best example of conservation but it is away ahead of Ontario.

Conservation is likely to be the cheapest, the safest and the most productive energy alternative readily available in large quantities. A study done in Long Island, New York, showed that a $6 billion investment in conservation and solar energy provided twice as much energy for end use consumption as a $7 billion investment in nuclear power. Over a 30-year period, the conservation and solar package created 178,000 jobs, as opposed to 72,000 created by the nuclear investment.

We are not talking pennies. We recognize that billions will have to be invested in whatever we do to meet our energy requirements. But I beg the minister to consider that borrowing $6 billion to $10 billion to build a nuclear plant that is not required in an already over-built system is not the sensible way to invest money. A much smaller investment of a few billion over the course of some years in conservation and alternative fuels would pay far greater dividends in terms of actual energy produced and jobs created.

I say this with all the sincerity I can muster. There is no election coming up; it is too late for me to win votes on this issue. But I implore the minister to recognize the wrong-headedness of an approach that puts billions more into electrical generation at this time when we already have enough. It allows him therefore to neglect -- not totally but by comparison -- alternatives that would be better.

There are ways in which we could emphasize conservation, even in electricity. It looks to me as if we are back in the business of promoting the usage of electricity. It is awfully tough when somebody knocks on the door and promotes the use of electricity and then somebody else knocks on the door to promote conservation. The average citizen has a lot of trouble reconciling Live Better Electrically with Don't Turn Off a Friend, Turn Off a Light Switch -- and now there is an incentive to go back to electricity.

It is pretty difficult for the ordinary citizen, because the truth is the government has not had a consistent policy in this regard. I understand it has been buffeted by the winds of energy problems and it is pretty tough to get hold of any moorings. But I ask the minister to recognize he has a little time now to assert himself in his role and take a stand in favour of common sense.

Common sense means we should move into conservation, even in electricity. For instance, we should not be charging less for electricity the more one uses: we ought to be charging more for electricity when people are using an excessive amount. Similarly there should be off-peak electricity charges, just as we have on the telephone system -- where you would get a break on the electricity rate if you used it off-peak. Then of course it does not have to be specially generated by fired-up stations.

I believe we ought to have the same thing in our residences they have in Sweden, and I ask the minister to consider this. That is a mandatory test on new houses which would provide a fuel economy rating. It is a 24-hour airtightness test. When you buy a house you get a rating as to what kind of energy efficiency is there in terms of its ability to keep the heat inside, or to be air conditioned efficiently. It is the same as buying a car -- one knows how many miles he is likely to get per gallon. One should have the same thing when buying a house. They have it in Sweden. It is not difficult. We ought to have that as a rating factor here in Ontario.

In the industrial sector -- cogeneration of electricity. Surely the minister must realize that Hydro is the biggest stumbling block in the way of that. Hydro even refuses to buy electricity generated by anybody other than Hydro, except in the rarest instances.

5 p.m.

Twenty-seven per cent of all West Germany's electric power is produced by industrial firms. All kinds of waste heat is going up the chimney here that could produce electricity without our having to raise one finger to build Darlington. The only thing standing in the way is that Hydro charges industry so little for electricity right now that the rest of us subsidize the large industries. They ask, "Why should we get into cogeneration?" They can buy it so cheaply it is not worth it to them to put even a penny of investment into cogeneration. Until Hydro deals with that rate structure they are really wasting electricity.

Now I want to speak about the alternative of fuel alcohol. The problem to which we should be devoting our billions of dollars is not the problem of generating electricity but the problem of how to move our cars and trucks around the road. Right now we are moving those with oil-based fuels coming from outside Ontario at higher and higher prices, and they are very scarce fuels indeed. We must not imagine that we can run those on electricity, because one needs a very long cord to do so.

The only way we are going to move our vehicles around is with a portable liquid fuel. Propane is a possibility and compressed natural gas is a possibility, but in both of those Ontario's interest is borderline. They are better than oil, granted. But consider fuel alcohol. We have all kinds of marginal land that can produce bush, wood and crops, all kinds of land in northern Ontario and in eastern Ontario just waiting to be utilized to produce a biomass with which we can produce fuel alcohol. This will create tens of thousands of jobs.

There was a day when Ontario led Canada and the world in a good many ideas, including the generation of electricity. Now Brazil, of all places, is producing 380,000 passenger cars that are driven on 100 per cent alcohol. They are producing six billion litres of alcohol. The United States will be producing 18 billion litres of fuel alcohol by 1985. This is not pie in the sky; this is not some imaginary program. This can be done in Ontario. We can use the wood waste that is now cluttering the forests and preventing the proper regeneration of trees. We can do what the Swedish government has done. It has entered into a deal with Volvo to develop a dual-fuel vehicle. The West German government is doing so with Volkswagen.

In summary there is not much we can do about high interest rates, inflation and all the worldwide problems, but we can make a move for sanity that might be the most important economic move Ontario could make right now in 1981. Instead of investing further billions in Darlington, which is not needed, we must invest our billions in conservation, in fuel alcohol or in other portable fuel alternatives. We must do so immediately and in the same numbers we have been ready to hand over to the empire builders at Hydro to further expand an already overexpanded system. It is the most important thing the government can do. I implore the minister, therefore, to accept the basis of this resolution and to act accordingly.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the resolution expresses disagreement with the government's continued emphasis on the generation of electricity by nuclear power, and particularly the acceleration in the construction of Darlington despite the evidence we have that there is no need for this additional electrical capacity.

Let me a put a few facts on the record. This is a repeat from yesterday morning in the resources development committee, but I think it is well for the House to be aware of it.

According to the six-month acceleration of the program imposed by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, Darlington generating station is going to be completed in the years 1988 to 1990. According to last year's long-term load forecast, which was in the range of 3.4 per cent to the end of the century, Darlington would not be needed for the system until 1992-95. In other words, Darlington is to be totally completed a year or two before its first units of power will be required on the system.

This year we have discovered that Ontario Hydro has reduced its long-term load forecast from 3.4 per cent to 3.1 per cent. The fourth unit of Darlington will not be needed until 1996-97. It is going to be completed some six years in advance of its fourth unit being needed.

Let me remind the House what has been happening to electrical energy consumption in Ontario. Whereas traditionally there used to be a seven per cent increase every year, the year before last it had dropped by half to 3.4 per cent. The actual increase last year was 2.9 per cent, the year before it was 2.7 per cent and this year the increase is 0.8 per cent, less than one per cent above the consumption of a year ago.

The select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs brought in a report and informed this Legislature that in its considered view, having listened to all the testimony, the long-term forecast in Ontario was likely to be in the range of two to three per cent to the end of the century, and not the 3.4 per cent Hydro predicted a year ago or the 3.1 per cent this year. Hydro is gradually facing the reality the select committee pointed out to it, that the load increase is likely to be in the range of two to three per cent to the end of the century.

The key point is this: If our load forecast drops to two or three per cent, Darlington will not be needed until the years 1996 to 2004. Those four units will be required in that eight-year span. The honourable member was correct when he said we misjudged our electrical power needs during the 1970s for reasons that had some legitimacy.

We were caught in the 12- to 15-year lead time needed to build new plants; so we built excess capacity. There may have been some excuse for it, some rationale for having been caught in that fashion, but there is no excuse for continuing to build an oversized system so that we complete Darlington some six to 14 years ahead of the time its power is needed.

Let me move to the alternatives suggested and to which this money might be redirected. On conservation, the key point for the layman to realize is this: It costs less to conserve one kilowatt of power than it does to build the generating capacity to produce a new kilowatt of power.

Obviously, it is plain common sense not to borrow money as though it were going out of style to build new generating capacity, particularly to build nuclear, which is the most capital-intensive kind of generating capacity, when by an expenditure of a smaller amount of money we will save energy all across the board.

The government is spending $1.5 million to bolster its rhetoric and its information program. In my kind moments I say it is propaganda; in my unkind moments I say it is something even more. It is spending $1.5 million on its information program to get the story out. I wonder if the general public of the province realizes that this year Hydro's new capital needs are $2.3 billion. That is primarily for an expansion of the system, and the expansion is primarily overwhelmingly nuclear and very costly. Why are we not redirecting some of that money to intensify the conservation program?

5:10 p.m.

Yesterday we heard from Hugh Macaulay, the chairman of Ontario Hydro, that one has to have the will to conserve. I agree one has to have the will to conserve. There is plenty of evidence that there is not only a will to conserve now but, indeed, also quite an incentive to conserve as prices rather thrust one along the way.

But if one is going to turn the will to conserve into actual conservation, there have to be the financial incentives; there has to be provision of the financing. Only now in the government's rhetoric are we getting around to considering how, by financing through the Hydro administrative structure, we might assist home owners and others to conserve that power.

Again, a redirection into the other areas of conservation of some of that monumental $2.3 billion that is going to be required by Hydro this year would be far more productive than building new generating capacity that may not be needed for six to 14 years after it is completed.

Let me say, in the final portion of my remarks -- and I say this seriously to my friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) -- if we are going to get to first base on this issue, we have to come to grips with the basic argument of Hydro. We had it again yesterday.

What on the surface looked like a pretty devastating case was given to me by Milan Nastich yesterday. It involved a comparison of the unit energy costs for producing power at Pickering and for producing power at Lambton, a coal-fired plant; it may be difficult to grasp this, but let me put it on the record for those who want to read it afterwards.

In the instance of Pickering, in 1980 the interest and depreciation was 6.07 mills per kilowatt-hour; for operation and maintenance, it was 3.77 mills; for heavy water, 0.44 mills; for fuel, 2.33 mills; for a total of 12.55 mills per kilowatt-hour. In Lambton, the interest and depreciation was 1.94 mills; operation and maintenance was 1.57 mills -- heavy water, of course, is not there; it is a coal-fired plant -- fuel was 17.57 mills; for a total of 21.08 mills per kilowatt- hour.

The point that Hydro is making is that the total cost for the capital, the maintenance, the fuel and everything at Pickering is 12.55 mills; the cost for fuel alone at Lambton is 17.57 mills.

So they draw the conclusion, "Let's build more nuclear plants." The ultimate objective will be to close down Lambton, Nanticoke and everything that is coal-fired. They have started to build a coal-fired plant up at Atikokan, and they are going to shut down half of it before they get it half constructed.

There is an interesting misjudgement inside a three-year period. This is the thrust; this is the argument.

The tragedy of the situation -- I say this to the minister with all the seriousness I can summon -- is that we cannot come to grips with this in two or two and a half hours before a resources development committee. We cannot come to grips with it in a debate in this House in which one speech follows another.

The only way we are going to come to grips with it is in a select committee on Hydro or energy. I have no objection if it is broadened to energy so we can get witnesses and find out the answers one way or another. We can make a report to the House, a substantive report that will counter the propaganda effort --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Your time has expired.

Mr. MacDonald: Good. When God speaks, the archangels have to hearken.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, particularly since it provides me with an opportunity to endorse the energy strategy of the government of Ontario.

As I interpret this resolution, it implies that there is undue emphasis in Ontario on nuclear power, to the exclusion of conservation and alternative energy. This, of course, is totally wrong. Nuclear power -- in fact, all forms of electrical generation -- is only one of many vital components of Ontario's energy strategy. Crude oil makes up about 41 per cent of Ontario's primary energy needs. This amounts to one third of all crude oil consumed in Canada, yet less than one half of one per cent of this crude oil comes from within Ontario.

Our goal in Ontario is to raise our capacity to produce more of our own energy needs from our present level of about 22 per cent to 37.5 per cent by 1995. Therefore, the government has promoted the development of a variety of alternative fuels, as well as embarking on an ambitious conservation program.

Actually, I believe that conservation and planned expansion of nuclear capacity complement each other in the context of Ontario's energy situation. Both allow us to reduce our use of fuels produced outside our national and provincial borders, in particular, oil.

We all know that Ontario has few fossil fuels, but we also know our province is blessed with the ability to produce electricity through nuclear and hydro power, both indigenous resources.

On the other hand, to pursue the Liberal energy strategy would have enormous real effects on the economy.

One would think that any such shift in government policy would benefit from open public consideration and criticism. One would think any party leader who is committed and dedicated to such a path would relish the opportunity to place such a bold new plan before the people.

My question is, why did we not hear of such a plan during the past election?

Mr. J. A. Reed: You heard of it first five years ago.

Mr. Barlow: No, not during the election campaign.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Come on. You've been hearing about it for five years.

Mr. Barlow: Wait. They did not come into Cambridge and say, "We want to cut down the nuclear power." They did not come into Cambridge and do that, nor did they come into Pickering and say that.

Mr. J. A. Reed: If you'd spent some time reading Hansard over the last few years, you'd know it was the policy. This is old news.

Mr. Barlow: They did not come into Pickering, Deep River or Cambridge and say that.

Mr. Speaker, nuclear generation is an effective and commercially viable option.

Mr. Sweeney: We sure said it in Kitchener.

Mr. Barlow: They did not say it in Cambridge.

Mr. Sweeney: Well, they said it right north of you.

Mr. Barlow: We have within our province uranium ore that will last many generations. The mining and fabricating of this fuel provides some 5,000 to 8,000 jobs. It is an important part of our northern economy. We have the manufacturing capability to build reactors. Eighty per cent of the reactors are made and produced right here in Ontario, with an extra 10 per cent of the construction throughout the balance of Canada. In other words, only 10 per cent of the Candu plant needs parts from outside of Canada. This provides about 40,000 directly related jobs and another 60,000 indirectly related jobs.

My riding also has a significant stake in nuclear energy. Babcock and Wilcox is the largest boiler manufacturing company in Canada. It does an average of about $100 million worth of business per year.

Mr. Kerrio: They got repeat business on the same boilers.

Mr. Barlow: That was something else. We will get into that later.

The nuclear portion consists of 15 to 25 per cent of all their business. Babcock and Wilcox has supplied more than 184 nuclear steam generators for domestic use. They are the largest employer in Cambridge and contribute more than $20 million in payroll to our city's economy each year. Employment is expected to stabilize at about 1,600 employees in Cambridge.

It has been estimated that one in 12 working households in Cambridge has someone working at Babcock and Wilcox. Some of these families have been working there for four generations. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) now realizes why the Liberals have such a good track record in Cambridge.

Mr. Laughren: Careful. You haven't been here very long. You may be just an overnight visitor.

Mr. Barlow: Do not count on that either, my friend. We are going to bury the NDP next time around.

5:20 p.m.

The Candu system is a most effective and efficient electrical converter of uranium into electricity. Our reactors have capacity factors that are 20 to 30 per cent higher than the others --

lnterjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Barlow: The other feature is on-line fuelling capacity. All other reactors have to be shut down to be refuelled.

Candu's lifetime performance record is nothing short of exemplary. In a rating of world reactor performance, six of the top seven reactors were Ontario Hydro Candu reactors. The cost of electricity produced from these reactors is attractive even at today's prices.

Nuclear power is cost-competitive with oil heating. We are now seeing a temporary stabilization of world oil prices, but I do not believe anyone in this chamber will suggest oil prices are going to drop in the future. Electrical home heating is going to remain.

The Leader of the Opposition has built his resolution on a false premise. I cannot understand why the discontinuation of nuclear energy generation and a redirection of funds towards fuel alcohol are considered in the same breath. I do not believe there are any energy experts around who believe alcohol fuels can replace nuclear generation of electricity for space heating or lighting purposes. Alcohol surely has a place in our energy mosaic, but I suggest it will never take the place of any method of generating electricity.

During the past election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition attempted to be all things to all people. Apparently he did not learn from the results, because he is repeating the same mistake. Before one gets rid of a proven method of electrical generation, one had better have a replacement. It is obvious from the wording of the resolution that this is not the case.

There is no question we will need electricity in the future, and I want to discuss some alternative means of generating electricity. In Ontario at present we use approximately 35 per cent hydraulic, 30 per cent coal and 35 per cent nuclear. Our remaining hydraulic capacity can meet only a portion of our future needs and we are all aware of the hazards of burning coal. We do not want to increase Hydro's use of coal. Besides the acid rain problem, Ontario does not have coal resources. It must be brought from the United States or from Alberta.

As far as solar power is concerned, it may one day meet many of the electrical needs but that day is some distance off. Although solar panels are now available, they are inefficient converters of sun rays to electricity and are still very expensive.

Wood is the other alternative that has been discussed and is a source that can be utilized, but it is also an extremely inoperative method at the present time.

Mr. Sweeney: What is inoperative about it if you cut the tree down?

Mr. Barlow: I will tell my friend why. If one studies the concept of wood-burning for electricity production, one cord of dry wood weighs one ton and will provide 16 million BTUs of heat or one third of a ton of methyl alcohol. As fuel, it will provide 1,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity worth three cents a kilowatt-hour, or $36 here in Ontario. As methanol, it will provide energy equivalent to 35 gallons of gasoline worth $1.25 a gallon, or $47.

However, if it is converted to pulpwood for papermaking, it will fetch about $400 to $500 or, if it is sold as firewood for heating a home, one cord will fetch about $90 to $120. In other words, more profits can be generated by other uses.

Mr. Speaker: Your time has expired, Mr. Barlow.

Mr. Barlow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I don't know who wrote that speech for the member for Cambridge. I wish he had pre-read it so that he could put some of it into his own words. If he stopped to reason through some of the phrases we heard in it, I think he would have considered the matter somewhat differently.

Surely the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) did not write that speech, because he agrees with the Liberal principle in terms of energy development. He believes we must approach our energy future on the broadest possible base. We cannot afford to confine our investment to one energy source, electric power, and in the case of this resolution, nuclear electric power.

We know we cannot do that, and we know that as we are doing it today we are sowing the seeds of the destruction of the nuclear industry. We are inflating a big economic bubble that cannot be sustained because of the reduced growth in electric power consumption in this province and the prospects for reduced growth to the end of this century.

Surely the member for Cambridge understands that if he wants Babcock and Wilcox to continue producing boilers it has to be done with some rationale. He cannot start firing in a whole bunch of money temporarily now only to experience a total economic vacuum in the 1990s when nobody is looking for nuclear generators any more because there will be such a surfeit of electric power in Ontario.

Surely he understands that electric power is useful; that it is essential for supplying some services. Surely he understands it does some jobs extremely well. I hope he understands it does other jobs less well. And I hope he understands it does other jobs very poorly.

One of the jobs it does poorly in terms of thermodynamics is its application to resistance electric heating. If he feels that somehow we have come across some saviour in nuclear-produced electricity that will heat our homes and drive our cars, I have news for the member for Cambridge. We had better reform the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs or reconstitute it as a standing committee on energy to educate the member for Cambridge. If he knew what he was talking about, he would not be making speeches like that. I hope he goes back to his speechwriter and shows him the flaws I think he now knows are there.

We talk about the cost to the consumer in Ontario if we are going to promote resistance electric heating. I looked at some figures published by the Ministry of Energy yesterday. In terms of unit cost of energy sources that are available to the people of Ontario, natural gas is available at a city-gate price, according to the ministry's figures, of $3 per million BTUs. Electric power is available on the same comparative basis at $9 per million BTUs.

When Darcy McKeough was making his speech to Rotary the other day, he said gas was 30 per cent cheaper than electricity. He was being awfully generous to the electric power segment of our energy mosaic. If one factors in a little bit for the difference in efficiency of conversion, it is still more than two to one. The prospects for gas exceeding the cost of electric resistance heat are very remote in this generation.

What this resolution of my leader is trying to bring home to the government and to the people of Ontario is the fact that we have to get some sanity into the way we approach energy. The minister is now at last paying lipservice to those approaches. He restated his commitment to conservation yesterday morning. I am awfully glad. I wish he would put his money where his mouth is, because he is not doing that. He found he got a budget cut in conservation before the budget was even presented for scrutiny.

The way energy is being approached in Ontario now is in total disagreement with so many of our areas of commerce. Certainly the gas utilities are not very agreeable with the kind of propaganda and so on that is being used to justify the overexpansion of the electrical utility. The Ontario Municipal Electric Association itself went on record at its annual meeting calling for equal emphasis to be given to conservation -- equal emphasis, it says. That is the OMEA; so just remember that.

5:30 p.m.

The minister is talking about some myth that this party was trying to replace electric power with alcohol -- which is nonsense; sheer, utter nonsense. The minister should know that an investment in motor fuel alternatives in Ontario would be one of the greatest employers that this province could have, and the drive towards energy self-sufficiency in this province could rescue Ontario from its position as tenth and last and put it once again in the forefront of this great country.

I do not mean to be so upset, Mr. Speaker, but we have gone around this block before and we always get the same kind of convoluted rhetoric. What is said in this resolution is the truth; it is right, and it is right for Ontario. It is right for the economy of Ontario; it is right for Babcock and Wilcox; it is right for the future employment there and the financial vitality of Cambridge in the year 2000 -- not just this year, not just next year but a generation from now.

Perhaps the member is not interested in the economic health of Cambridge a generation from now, but there are people in this party who are interested. We are looking a little bit farther than the ends of our noses; we are looking at the longer term.

This resolution disagrees with the continuing emphasis on this type of generation. It is not because we are opposed to nuclear power. It is because we are opposed to waste, because we are opposed to inefficiency and because we are opposed to cost overruns. It is also because we are opposed to this growing monolith which will say to us by the time we reach 1990 that we cannot afford to invest in the options; we cannot afford to go to the alternatives, because we spent all our money on Darlington. That is what this resolution means.

If there ever was a time when the approach to energy has to get out of its stranglehold -- the stranglehold of a confinement to one source, to putting all the eggs in one basket -- now is the time. The other day I told the minister that it is time for a Minister of Energy in Ontario to walk where people have not walked before, to stand with courage, to stand up alone, and not to follow the crowd in polis but to move ahead of the crowd. He will find himself alone, everything he does will not be necessarily correct and everything will not be thoroughly successful, but he will launch Ontario on the road of economic security, energy security and restore its place in this Confederation.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the previous speaker found time to speak to the Liberal candidate in Algoma-Manitoulin during the last two weeks of the election about this whole nuclear question.

I am pleased to engage in this debate this afternoon. I want to commend the leader of the official opposition for putting this resolution on the Order Paper. I should state at the beginning that I come at this within the framework of the policy of my party, which states: "That we would declare a moratorium on any further expansion of the nuclear industry until such time as the safe disposal of byproducts and the safety of those projects themselves are assured."

I want to begin, if I may, by quoting from a fellow Socialist, a fellow by the name of Albert Einstein. This is what Albert said: "The splitting of the atom has changed everything, save our mode of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe."

Mr. Nixon: He thought the whole thing up.

Mr. Laughren: That is right; that was the anomaly of the whole thing.

The nuclear industry is a dangerous industry, owing to the presence of concentrated forms of very large quantities of radioactive material which pose serious threats to our health and safety. These dangers can occur at all stages of the fuel cycle: in the mining and milling of uranium, in its transport and enrichment, in its use in power stations and in the transport and disposal of the waste. If there is a radiation danger to those involved as workers or to nearby residents, it can occur at any of these stages. It can affect people themselves or their unborn children.

A common thread and threat is the exposure of living things to radiation. Our exposure may be direct, as a result of a nuclear accident, or it may be indirect, as small amounts of radiation are carried by the wind.

Let me focus first on the initial step of the nuclear fuel cycle. Approximately 4,000 workers are employed in uranium mining and milling in Canada. Professor James Ham of the University of Toronto in his report on the health and safety of workers commented on how the miners of Elliot Lake develop lung cancer at twice the rate of other Canadians. An Ontario Ministry of Health study indicates that for uranium miners between the ages of 40 and 60 the risk of lung cancer was even greater. Uranium miners in this age group have lung cancer rates of up to five times the expected rate for that age group.

A comparison of rates of cancer among uranium workers and among the general population greatly underestimates the consequences of uranium mining. The rate of lung cancer deaths among uranium miners has been shown to be two to five times that of the general population. Deaths by cancer among the general population are already epidemic, and these cancer deaths among the general population are themselves largely the result of environmental contamination. Thus, the standard of health of the general population is a poor standard with which to compare the deaths of uranium miners.

Nuclear energy involves significant risks to the general population, primarily from low-level radioactive substances routinely escaping into the environment of nuclear installations. Let me refer to a 470-page report on low-level radiation that was recently published by the British Columbia Medical Association. On page 283 of that report they say: "In light of the present state of knowledge one could well view the allowable exposure to the public from nuclear facilities as tantamount to allowing an industrially induced epidemic of cancer."

Nuclear energy also presents serious risks of major accidents that could -- I emphasize could -- have tragic consequences. A reactor meltdown could result in several thousand immediate deaths and tens of thousands of later cancer deaths. Talk of odds of one million to one against a major accident is sheer nonsense.

In its interim report on nuclear power, the royal commission said that in considering the probability of a nuclear accident at a Candu power plant the nuclear critics were more realistic than the nuclear industry. The report said: "Assuming for the sake of argument that within the next 40 years Canada will have 100 operating reactors, the probability of a core meltdown might be in the order of one in 40 years if the most pessimistic estimate of probability is assumed."

The report concludes that a realistic probability for a Candu meltdown is about one in 10,000 per reactor per year. With 12 reactors operating near Toronto alone -- eight at Pickering and four at Darlington -- each operating for 30 years or more, the probability of at least one core meltdown in the Toronto vicinity becomes one divided by 10,000 times 12, because there are 12 reactors, and then times 30, because it is 30 years. That works out to a ratio of one in 28, which is just a bit larger than the probability of rolling snake-eyes with two dice.

And if, as is suggested by Dr. Gordon Edwards, who is from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, the Porter commission estimates happen to be low by a factor of five -- and this is a distinct probability -- then the probability of a nuclear disaster at one of these plants near Toronto could drop to one in six, which is the probability of rolling a one with a single dice.

The nuclear fuel cycle also creates radioactive waste for which there is as yet no proven method of safe disposal, and this waste poses an inestimable danger to future generations. Continuation of the nuclear expansion and the speculation that the waste problem will be solved is an unjustifiable leap of faith. All these risks must be balanced against the expected gain in alternative ways of creating energy.

Nuclear power now provides only 1.3 per cent of Canada's delivered energy -- and I emphasize energy. This is less than one third of the energy that is produced each year on the west coast by the burning of hog fuel, which is a term used to describe uneconomic forest residues. Even Mr. Arthur Porter, the born-again nuclear evangelist who has changed his mind about nuclear development, admits that by the year 2000 nuclear energy can realistically provide only three per cent of Canada's total energy needs.

Canadians must surely ask why we take such risks for a mere three per cent of our total energy needs. Upon reflection, this nation might conclude, as did the 1973 Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs: "Owing to the potentially grave and as yet unresolved problems relating to waste management and radioactivity released arising from accidents, natural disasters, sabotage or acts of war, the wisdom of a commitment to nuclear fission as a principal energy source for mankind must be seriously questioned at the present time."

We in the New Democratic Party believe our Warm Up Ontario program, which we released in the last couple of months, is a responsible and realistic route to take. It is like the sorcerer's apprentice: this province is currently acting upon dangerous and incomplete knowledge. Nuclear power is an unnecessary and unacceptable risk. Any further expansion of the industry in Ontario is completely unjustified.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to be able to make a few comments on this resolution. I will confine my remarks this afternoon to the section of the resolution calling for a massive program to develop alternative energy resources such as fuel alcohol for internal combustion engines.

As I am sure the honourable members are aware, on February 3 of this year the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) announced a five-year, $75 million program to develop alternative fuels to petroleum for transportation. This program includes fuel alcohol, ethanol and methanol, but it goes far beyond the limited scope and vision of the program outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith). I will return to the ministry's alternative fuel program in a moment, but first I want to examine the opposition's proposal.

5:40 p.m.

As the honourable members will recall, the Leader of the Opposition in March 1980, a little more than a year ago, released a report which had as its goal 100 per cent replacement of gasoline by methanol as a fuel in Ontario. At that time the proposal was judged by many to be uneconomical in terms of cost of production, unrealistic in terms of plant construction goals and impossible in terms of available feedstocks.

Evidently the opposition reassessed its position over the past year and agreed with this assessment, because now its proposals have been modified considerably. Instead of the 100 per cent conversion to biomass based on methanol in five years, it is suggesting a 50 per cent conversion in 15 years, replacing only half as much fuel and over a period three times as long.

I could detail a number of errors in the opposition's calculations regarding the number of plants needed to meet its declared goals and the number of plants that could be built by 1985 related to the cost of production and the available feedstocks. I could also drive a truck through the proposed strategy to utilize the fuel in the transportation sector.

I am not here to refute calculations one by one but to examine the overall impact of a program such as the opposition proposes given the realities of Ontario's energy situation. It is in this overall impact that the proposal is found to be seriously wanting. It is wanting in that it is a narrow program in scope. If pursued, it could be highly dangerous for Ontario's energy security.

The Leader of the Opposition wants us to devote all our resources to a gamble -- a gamble that production of methanol using wood as a fuel stock will be a viable alternative to gasoline in the near future.

At this time there are no commercial-scale alcohol plants of the type envisioned by the Leader of the Opposition operating anywhere in the world. Yet the opposition would have us pursue alcohol, particularly methyl from wood, as an alternative fuel to the exclusion of all others. Certainly methyl from wood has a place in Ontario's transportation energy future -- but so do electricity, propane, compressed natural gas and hydrogen, to name just a few. This is where our strategy and the program differs significantly from the opposition's. We are tackling the energy challenge on a broad front rather than on a narrow one.

What we are facing is transition from the petroleum economy of the twentieth century to what many consider to be the hydrogen economy of the next century. This transition period is a bridge, and the fuels that will provide this bridge are many and varied. Some, such as propane, are commercially available now. The techniques and equipment for converting fleets of vehicles are commercially available now. The opportunity to buy and use propane is there right now.

Propane has a major role to play in the immediate future. In fact, under budgetary incentives put in place by our government, it has already begun to help Ontario lessen its dependence on gasoline. We have recognized this, and propane is included in the alternative transportation fuel program. Our Drive Propane project has as its goal the conversion of 40,000 vehicles in Ontario to propane by 1985. This is practical, economical, technically feasible and it is within our grasp right now. Methyl from biomass is not.

Other fuels that will help us in the short term include compressed or liquefied natural gas. These are also included in our alternative transportation fuels program. We are encouraging conversion of urban bus systems from gasoline or diesel fuel to electricity through the Urban Transit Development Corporation. We are committed to the electrification of the GO Transit system, and we are investigating the possibilities of converting other train systems.

Honourable members should not infer that the government is ignoring longer-term options based on indigenous resources. We envisage a great future for electricity for powering transportation. Several major companies are at work developing electric vehicles. One company expects to have an electric vehicle on the market in competition with the conventional automobile by the late 1980s.

In co-operation with Ontario Hydro under the alternative transportation fuels program we will be encouraging Ontario industry to become involved in work such as this, but in the near term we expect electricity's major contribution in transportation to be in the field of mass transit. Our overall goals with the alternative transportation fuels program are to replace two per cent of the gasoline used in Ontario with alternative fuels by 1985 and to replace a full 10 per cent of the gasoline by 1995.

I have been dealing here mainly with the alternative fuels that will provide a bridge to the hydrogen age. But what of hydrogen itself? Last year, the Ministry of Energy established the Ontario hydrogen energy task force, and its report is expected shortly. Under contract to the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, we are undertaking a major development program designed to produce prototype urban buses fuelled by hydrogen.

Under the BILD program, we are committed to the establishment of an institute of hydrogen systems. We are confident these systems, combined with Ontario's excellent electrical generating systems, will put this province in the forefront of the hydrogen era.

This is the range of choices with which we are faced, from propane conversion today to hydrogen as a fuel in the twenty-first century. There is no doubt that fuel alcohols will have an important part to play, first as a gasoline extender, then as the alternative fuel in fleet applications and, in the case of ethanol, in farm-related energy usages. Through the Ontario Energy Corporation, we are working on their development as part of a broad overall program for alternative fuels.

5:50 p.m.

It would be irresponsible in the extreme for us as a government either to neglect valuable near-term alternative fuels such as propane, electricity and compressed natural gas or to neglect major long-term options such as hydrogen to concentrate our efforts in resources solely on fuel alcohol from biomass.

This is not merely my opinion or the opinion of the Ministry of Energy; it is the opinion of all the groups that have seriously examined Canada's alternative fuel options. The most recent of these is the report Energy Alternatives by the House of Commons special committee on alternative energy. I draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to the chart on page 77 of that report. It supports in spades the policy position set out by the Minister of Energy in its alternative fuels strategy documented last February.

Mr. Speaker: Your time has expired, Mr. Kolyn.

Mr. Kolyn: Thank you.

TILE DRAINAGE

Mr. Speaker: Mr. J. M. Johnson has moved resolution 5.

Those in favour will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

ENERGY PROGRAM

The House divided on Mr. Smith's motion of resolution 6, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Boudria, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Martel, McKessock; Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Ruston, Samis, Smith, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Piché, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Ayes 36; Nays 55.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 13, I want to indicate to the members of the House the business for the rest of this week and next week.

Tonight and tomorrow, the House will engage in the budget debate.

In the afternoon of Monday, June 1, we will debate the NDP motion of no confidence, and on Monday evening we will do legislation -- second readings of bills 81, 76, 72, 73, 77, 70, 69 and 67.

In the afternoon of Tuesday, June 2, we will deal with the committee of the whole House stage of Bill 48 and, when that is finished, continue with second reading of any legislation not completed Monday evening. During the evening sitting of Tuesday, June 2, which will begin at nine o'clock rather than eight o'clock, we will continue with second reading of any legislation that has not been completed in the afternoon.

On Wednesday, June 3, three committees may meet in the morning -- resources development, general government and administration of justice.

On Thursday, June 4, in the afternoon, the House will deal with private members' ballot items 6 and 7 standing in the names of Mr. Martel and Mr. G. W. Taylor. On the evening of June 4, the House will debate the plant shutdown committee draft report which will be before us for consideration.

On Friday, June 5, we will continue with legislation. The legislation to be dealt with will be the second readings that are still left of the list of bills which I indicated earlier, followed, if necessary, by any committee of the whole House stages of those bills if necessary.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.

APPENDIX

TRIBUTE TO FORMER SPEAKER JOHN STOKES

Mr. Speaker: I am very happy that so many of you have turned out to pay tribute and say thank you to John Stokes, the former Speaker and the MPP for Lake Nipigon -- I didn't forget that -- who has done a tremendous job under extremely difficult conditions. I think that is fair enough to say, Jack.

Not only did he do a tremendous job, but he also gained the respect of all the members in the House. Jack, I say that very sincerely, not because you are here or your wife is here or your friends are here, but because I really sincerely mean that.

The Premier is next on the agenda. I understand he has a 20-minute prepared speech.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Stokes and members of your family -- Jack -- and members of the House and guests:

I, of course, completely agree with what the Speaker said, Jack, about your activities, except to disagree on one aspect. I can only speak personally; I thought that I had made a very real effort to make your task really quite simple during the past period of time. I can't think of anyone in the House who interjected less, who confined his answers to brief "yeses" and "nos" during your tenure as Speaker of the assembly, and I just have to disagree with you, Mr. Speaker, when you suggest that Jack had to operate in difficult circumstances.

I can't think of any easier situation than where you have a minority, with two opposition leaders who have no political ambitions in mind, who are totally co-operative, never anxious to precipitate any controversy. I thought it was one of the easiest periods I have experienced here at Queen's Park. I really think you had a piece of cake in terms of your responsibilities, and if you believe that, you will believe everything else I say, which most of you do anyway.

But, Jack, it is a great pleasure, on behalf of the government and our own caucus, to participate in the traditional ceremony, the hanging of the portrait of the Speaker of the assembly. It was a great pleasure to meet the young lady who painted this portrait and to have her assurance that unlike some portraits I have seen -- which I will not name -- in a few moments when it is unveiled we will recognize that it is a portrait of Jack Stokes.

I would like to say to Lynn Donoghue, in advance of seeing this work of art, how much we appreciate your talent and the fact that you have, in fact, painted a resemblance of our former Speaker.

Jack, I said in the House -- and I don't want to repeat it all again today -- how much I appreciated, quite sincerely, the way you conducted the affairs of the assembly, the example that you have established, and the very fair way in which you handled what were, in fact, very onerous responsibilities. It is a great pleasure for me to say this on behalf of the government and our caucus and to wish you well in the future, whatever that future may be.

I shouldn't say this with Mr. Cassidy here. Really, Michael, you should understand that Jack is far more of a free enterpriser than he is prepared to acknowledge on most issues -- no, I am only teasing, Jack; I only sense that from the things you say. You have to have a little fun outside the House.

6:10 p.m.

I understand I am to unveil the portrait after Dr. Smith and Mr. Cassidy have made their observations, at which time I will be delighted to play a part in showing the world just what great talent the artist has, and what a very distinguished-looking gentleman you, Jack, will be for ongoing generations who can come here and admire that very distinguished, handsome gentleman, Mrs. Stokes, whom you are fortunate enough to be associated with -- only the good fortune is on his side and not yours.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Premier. You seem to be on the defensive tonight. I did not say anything about the distribution of members when I said "difficult conditions." However, I would like to draw attention to the fact that while Jack has performed a very notable job under, as I said before, somewhat difficult conditions, his good wife, Mrs. Stokes, deserves a lot of the credit. I am sure Jack would not have been able to stand up to the pressures had he not had the support of his good wife. I would like to draw that to everybody's attention.

Having said that, I now call on Dr. Stuart Smith who is going to give us a nonpartisan address.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, as usual, as I almost always do, I want to agree with the Premier. I was a little worried, I have to admit -- I guess I did not listen carefully -- when I heard something about Jack Stokes being hanged at Queen's Park. I thought that was just a trifle strong. There were times, mind you, when the notion was fleetingly discussed in Liberal caucus; but only fleetingly, I assure you.

We are delighted that Jack is being honoured in the traditional way by having his portrait unveiled. I thought you were looking a bit pale until I was assured that it was not yet unveiled. The artist, of course, deserves our congratulations. It is always better to give those before you look at the painting. Some of the most flattering comments made about my speeches were made before I gave them, I can assure you.

I want to pay tribute, as well, to Mrs. Stokes. I honestly believe Jack's contribution was an extremely important reason that the minority Parliaments functioned reasonably well. I think he showed great wisdom and a sincere desire to be fair to all sides. Even though we had our occasional differences on minor points, I honestly think Jack made a great contribution to the process of government and he has our love and our respect. I hope to be able to regard Jack as a friend for the rest of our days.

To Jack, to the family and to the artist, thank you very much and congratulations.

Mr. Speaker: There is another lady here who deserves to be recognized, because without her none of this would have happened. I call attention to the fact that Jack's mother, Mrs. Brown, is here. We are very pleased to have you and thank you very much for joining us. I call on Michael Cassidy.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, when I first came into this building -- it must have been about 30 years ago, I suppose, as a school child in Toronto -- and later as a university student and then as an MPP, what I noticed was that if you wanted to really arrive as far as Queen's Park was concerned, you had to have your portrait on the walls. If you look around you can see these distinguished gentlemen -- no ladies that I know of, as a matter of fact -- who have their portraits here --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Michael, I knew you were never as committed to the monarchy as he is. I mean, I made speeches for 44 days about it.

Mr. Cassidy: That is true, yes -- and nothing else either, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should not interject -- it worked.

Mr. Cassidy: I was going to say that Jack Stokes is the first Socialist to have his portrait up on the walls of Queen's Park. I had hoped I would find a way of having mine up here one day as well, but that may not happen --

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: It has taken 114 years since Confederation to get Mr. Stokes's portrait up on the walls of Queen's Park, and I certainly hope it will not take an equivalent amount of time before the next Socialist portrait goes up on these hallowed and tradition-enshrined walls.

I want to say as well that Jack Stokes has been one of the finest Speakers the Ontario Legislature has known over the course of those 114 years. He will go down in the record of this Legislature not just as the first New Democrat to be the Speaker but also as the first opposition member to be Speaker of the House and also as the first member from northern Ontario.

He will go down in the annals of the Legislature as the Speaker who presided over a period of enormous change in the way the Legislature functioned, as the control of the administration of the Legislature was transferred to the Board of Internal Economy and to the Legislature itself and away from the direct hands of the government. He distinguished himself for his independence and his impartiality; Jack, I was thrown out of this place three times in seven years before you came along, and not once while you were the Speaker.

He distinguished himself as well in the way he represented Ontario to other parliamentarians and other Speakers across the province. I think he earned an enormous amount of respect not just for himself and not just for the chair in the Legislature but also for Ontario. For all those reasons it is a pleasure for me on behalf of the New Democrats to participate at this unveiling. I also want to congratulate you in advance, Ms Donoghue, for the portrait, which I know will merit our applause when we see it in a minute's time.

I, too, want to say a special word to Helen Stokes, because her lot has been a difficult one in the last three or four years, with Jack having to be here almost every day the session was sitting. Most of the out-of-town members can sneak away occasionally on a Monday or a Friday in order to be with their families and back in their home ridings when the House is sitting; but that was not the case with Jack, who was pretty constant in his attendance and keeping the minority parliament under control.

Thank you, Helen. Jack, thank you. It is a pleasure to be here to honour and to pay tribute to you for the excellent job you have done. It is a job well done, brother.

Mr. Speaker: Now, Jack, if you would join me I think we are going to have a kind of Christmas here. All our friends and colleagues in the House have joined together and been able to mark this event with an appropriate gift. You just do not know how appropriate it is in my case, because -- I will comment on it afterwards, but I just want you to know that we very much appreciate what you have done. The feeling is very personal -- there are no two ways about it. Otherwise all these people just would not have been here. I think that is a tremendous mark of respect to you personally. I just wanted to make that point.

Without further ado, I think the green one is first. I might say there was a great deal of agonizing to get the right colour.

Unwrapping of gifts.

6:20 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Am I supposed to open this now, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: If you would like. It is almost a shame to open it, is it not?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, it is. Like most things in the Speaker's office, this was extremely well done. Oh, it's beautiful. Oh, isn't that beautiful. Thank you very much.

[Applause.]

Mr. Stokes: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: You are very welcome. Being a former railroad man, I knew you would appreciate a timepiece. It is all the more appropriate because it recalls the day I called the first votes on private members' hour. I did it without regard for the time, so it has a special meaning for me as well.

There is something else from the assembly.

Mr. Stokes: This is something I have wanted all my life. I don't know how many hundreds of meetings I have chaired and have never had a gavel I could call my own.

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Now, Mr. Stokes, having regard for the fact that it is private members' afternoon, you may take over.

Mr. Stokes: I want to thank the Speaker, the Premier, Dr. Smith, Mr. Cassidy, other parliamentary colleagues, family, ladies and gentlemen. It is always a pleasure to be able to say how much one appreciates an opportunity to serve in the way in which I have been given such an opportunity over the past five and a half years as Deputy Speaker and Speaker of the Legislature of Ontario. You really can't appreciate the way in which it broadens one's horizons, makes one much more tolerant, more understanding and, above all, a much better listener. That has been my experience, especially over the past three and a half years.

Among other things it has given me an opportunity to appreciate to a much fuller extent what parliamentary democracy should mean to all of us. From time to time in the chamber we have our differences in emphasis, in degree and in priorities. I don't think any of us have any differences about what our responsibility is down here, collectively and individually, on behalf of the eight and a half million people in Ontario who sent us here to do a job.

The system we have is not perfect. It will only work if you and I, with the help of everybody in Ontario, really want to make it work and to improve upon it so we can continue to act as a model for those less fortunate. Mr. Speaker, you will learn very quickly in your role as president of the Ontario branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association the many ways in which we can show leadership in fostering a better understanding among the world community of nations, particularly those belonging to the Commonwealth, where one billion of the world's population go to bed hungry every night because of our inability to share with those less fortunate.

It is an excellent opportunity for you, Mr. Speaker, as our leader and our chief representative of the assembly, along with all of us, to make a very meaningful contribution to the lifestyle for not only people in Ontario but those whom you and other members of the assembly will be associated with certainly over the length of this next parliament. I want to thank all of you for giving me the opportunity to acquire that kind of perspective and that kind of depth that I see in the role in which you play, sir.

I would also like to take advantage of this opportunity -- the first one I have had -- to say how much I appreciated the co-operation that I received, not only from all of the members of the assembly but from all the staff. The last time I counted there were something like 550 employees who liaise with the Office of the Assembly. This place works because you people are dedicated to making it work.

All too often the members think government and everything that goes on around here revolves around just the 125 members who happen to represent the electorate. I happen to think that on most occasions it works, and it works well, because we have so many wonderful and dedicated people here, who are here 12 months a year and contribute in a very real and significant way towards the whole democratic process.

Finally, I would like to add to the sentiments expressed by the Premier, Dr. Smith and Michael Cassidy on the way in which my family, particularly my wife, Helen, have been so supportive of me and what I attempted to do, not only in the three and a half years that I had the privilege of serving in the chair, but during the 14 years that I have had the pleasure of serving the riding of first Thunder Bay and now Lake Nipigon. It is often said that behind anyone who shows any success at all, there is always a very intelligent wife. I have been blessed with a very intelligent, supportive wife who has encouraged me every step of the way. Without her, it wouldn't have been possible.

To everybody who in any way contributed towards parliamentary democracy and making my chore as the Speaker a little bit easier, I would like to say very sincerely and from the bottom of my heart, thank you very much. Thank you for these wonderful gifts.

Mr. Premier, I have been asked for the last week what was going to happen to me today, whether I was going to be undraped or hanged. I don't know. I don't look forward to either of those prospects, but I understand you have something to do right now.

Thank you, one and all, for your co-operation.

[Applause.]

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are neither going to be hung nor undraped; you are going to be unveiled, all being well.

[Unveiling.]

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much, Mr. Premier and Jack. The suspense is over, and I would like to say to Lynn Donoghue that it is a remarkable portrait.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I say that with all sincerity. It is very, very nice.

Now, Jack, we have something else that is a bit of a memento, in the tradition of the Speaker's portrait. It is a copy for your own house of the same as is on the pedestal here. It includes a bit of a rundown of Lynn Donoghue and John E. Stokes, MPP. We would just like you to have this to go with the painting that hangs in your house.

6:30 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you very much. I neglected to mention that this little ceremony has much more of a northern flavour than I even expected. Lynn was born in Red Lake.

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: I am told, for those who are interested, that there are refreshments in room 228. For those of you who are not familiar with the building, it is down that way and around the corner. Thank you.

May 28, 1981