Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

PARTNERSHIP FOR PROSPERITY

Hon. Mr. Welch: With the Ontario economic conference, Partnership for Prosperity, last February the government began a process of involving all segments of Ontario society in extensive consultation on what the province should be doing to ensure a continuing moderation of inflation after the national anti-inflation programme has been removed.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) suggested at that time that these discussions would continue. In the Speech from the Throne it was indicated that Ontario has set in motion a series of steps which would build upon February’s successful initiative.

I would like to indicate this morning that the Premier and some of our colleagues are engaged in extensive discussions with a representative group of individuals coming from a broad range of backgrounds in Ontario -- in business, labour, agriculture and other segments of our society. They will be meeting in private session throughout the day to deal specifically with the issues which will affect our immediate and long-term prosperity in this province. We don’t expect a consensus or any concrete decisions to come out of these discussions today, but we do expect to receive substantial and useful advice to assist us in solving the problems with which the government must deal.

ENERGY REPORT

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a report entitled Ontario’s Energy Future. I believe it to be the most comprehensive report ever undertaken on this subject.

Mr. Deans: This is the second day in a row.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It examines the prospect of continued sources of non-renewable energy and concludes that there is little prospect that they can be maintained at the present rate of consumption for more than another quarter of a century.

Mr. Sargent: We’re sure glad you’re there, then.

Mr. Renwick: Bad management.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It further concludes that the world supply of crude oil and natural gas will be essentially depleted by the year 2025. Obviously, this has crucial implications for Ontario, as it has for all industrialized communities of the world. It is evident that we must be very prudent in the use of these depleting resources. It is equally evident that we must intensify our efforts to produce energy from renewable sources.

Mr. Lewis: That’s really stunning and profound stuff.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The capital and technological requirements for the development of renewable energy sources are so massive that it will require a world-wide commitment.

The report I am tabling today imposes a time frame for policy planning. It suggests a near term during which we will be largely dependent upon fossil fuels and uranium. We will be almost entirely dependent upon fossil fuels until the end of this century. In the first quarter of the next century, we will gradually shift toward increasing reliance upon renewable or very long-term resources.

The final phase, the long term, will stretch beyond the first quarter of the next century. It will be an era in which we will have shifted to a primary dependence upon renewable energy forms.

Between the near term and the long term will be a vitally important transitional phase. As the name implies, this phase should be marked by a gradual planned shift toward a growing reliance upon renewable energy sources.

Mr. Lewis: This really is such simplistic pap!

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The use of such a three- phase planning framework makes very explicit the timing of the choices that will have to be made. Commitments must be made in regard to such proposals as the construction of additional heavy oils and oil sands plants, the secondary and tertiary recovery of existing crude oil, transportation systems, and new initiatives in exploration and development. These are crucially important decisions that must be made now.

Commitments must also be made in regard to the expansion of research, development and demonstration projects that are designed to establish the means of economically producing energy in commercial quantities from renewable sources.

Mr. Mackenzie: Where have you been for 20 years?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we must solicit and gain the support and cooperation of the general public, the private sector, of other provinces, and of the government of Canada.

Mr. Sargent: What a bunch of nonsense you are reading. Why don’t you sit down, it doesn’t mean a damn thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The co-operative programme that resulted in the development of the Canadian heavy water natural uranium generating processes, Candu, may be one model for research for the transitional phase; and the Syncrude project may provide another model for the development of the urgent requirements of the near term.

To this end, the report suggests a Canadian council of energy ministers be established. Above all else, we must provide the economic, financial and social environment in which our domestic energy resources can be developed as a national priority.

Mr. Lewis: That’s profound.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The report arrives at 26 conclusions relating to the prospective supply-and-demand relationships of conventional fuels; some necessary developments related to the near term; the growing urgency of conservation and improved efficiency in energy use; and the pressing requirements of moving toward a transition to the renewable energy sources of the future.

Mr. Sargent: You’re wasting the time of the House. You don’t understand it yourself.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I do not expect everybody to agree with everything in the report.

Mr. Davidson: If this is the best report the other one must have been terrible.

Mr. Sargent: Do you understand what you’re saying?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It is my expectation, however, that in addition to providing a prospective policy framework the report will result in increased public knowledge and discussion of the implications of energy to our future lifestyle, the designing of our communities --

Mr. Mackenzie: The public’s 20 years ahead.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- the industrial and economic prospects of the province and changes in our society that will have to be effected in the decades ahead.

Printed copies of the report will be available on Monday for all members and the public.

Mr. Renwick: That’s too late.

NORTHERN AIRPORTS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to inform the House this morning that I will be introducing a bill to amend The Airports Act, a bill aimed at broadening the wording of the present Act.

The ministry has been constructing airports in the remote north for some years now; and, in fact, there are 11 in operation at settlements such as Fort Severn, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Pickle Lake, and Big Trout Lake.

The new bill will make it clear that my ministry has the authority to lease lands or facilities at these airports -- not simply construct, operate and maintain airports as we have been doing.

Leasing land and/or facilities to individuals or corporations, I feel, will increase the usefulness of those airports already in operation as well as those still in the planning or construction stages. I am thinking, for example, of carriers which could then build hangars for the maintenance of their aircraft, or oil companies which could erect petroleum storage tanks on our airport properties. Both would obviously provide better service in northern locations.

For some years now, MTC has been subsidizing the construction of municipal airports in northern Ontario at places such as Atikokan, Chapleau, Cochrane, Kirkland Lake, Wawa and Sioux Lookout. Some municipalities have found the costs of maintaining and operating them, once built, a strain on their financial resources. I am referring particularly to communities that now have regularly scheduled air service, such as norOntair, which requires a continuous high standard of maintenance.

The new bill will confirm the government’s authority to subsidize maintenance and operational costs of such airports as may be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

FOREST FIRES

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members have inquired about the preparations my ministry has made to meet the severe forest fire situation which could develop this summer. This is a potential problem with implications throughout the province, as well as possible effects on the communities, industries and the overall economy of the north.

I welcome this opportunity to provide details of steps we are taking to cope with this potentially serious situation. As the members may recall, last summer’s forest fires burned some 1¼ million acres, and the direct costs to deal with those fires amounted to over $20 million.

As we have been publicizing, the prolonged drought of the past two years has continued in the north, particularly in the area west of Lake Nipigon to the Manitoba border. Water in the lakes and streams in this area is well below normal levels, and the layer of heavy fuels in the area -- meaning muskeg and the heavy slash on the surface of the ground -- has dried out to a considerable depth, in some cases to 10 feet. Consequently, when fires start they will be difficult to put out. It would take six inches of rain to bring the area back to near normal, and weather experts feel the chances of this happening are remote.

Our latest report is that only six fires are still burning underground, mainly in the Fort Frances and Rainy River area. My staff feels those will be out during this week. The other fires were either extinguished by ministry staff or went out during the spring runoff. However, the general situation is still acute.

[10:15]

To prepare for this potential threat, we have taken the following steps: A total of $7 million in new funds has been allocated to fire prevention and firefighting this year. This is in addition to the basic allocation of $14 million -- in other words, 50 per cent more. About $300,000 of this amount is being used for an intensive prevention programme in the northwest to alert all forest users about the danger. The campaign includes posters, brochures, advertisements and school visits by staff.

To further bolster the prevention programme I declared a ban on campfires in northwestern Ontario as of April 1. This ban does not restrict travel or recreation in the bush, but can do much to reduce the incidence of man-made fires which might get out of control and threaten the woodlands.

Two hundred thousand dollars has been allocated to provide a more flexible fire detection programme. These funds will allow us to put more aircraft in the air for detection, and a portion is being used for infrared equipment on planes to locate hard to find fires.

For the critical burning period, four waterbombing Cansos have been hired, as well as 13 helicopters, on long-term contract.

About 200 extra persons have been taken on to assist our regular fire crews during the summer months. These extra persons are now in training.

About $1 million of the additional funds has been used to purchase forest fire equipment, ranging all the way from firefighting tools, hose and pumps to tents, cooking equipment and sleeping bags.

A number of fire-experienced personnel in my ministry, normally involved in other activities, has been temporarily transferred to the fire control programme to ensure that adequate direction is given to the prevention and firefighting activities. But we expect only minimal interference with our other ministry programmes, such as forest regeneration, fish and wildlife management, parks and mines management; that is if our plans work out and nature doesn’t throw us some nasty, unexpected curves.

The approach used in this year’s operation is to concentrate on initial attack so that, as much as possible, large fires will be prevented from breaking out. The idea is to get there quickly and keep the fires small. It’s the large fires that are so costly and force us to bring in other ministry staff to help out. We have planned our strategy and used our funds so that the firefighting resources are deployed in all vulnerable areas. This should reduce the moving of people and equipment from one area to another, which was done in previous seasons.

We also hope that our plans will enable the various forest-using industries to function normally with little interference from forest fires. Of course, if any major outbreaks occur despite our best efforts, companies operating on Crown lands may be asked to assist in suppression activities.

It is natural for communities in the affected areas in the north to be concerned about the potential threat. But let me assure everyone that our plans are to go in anywhere to help when needed. Traditionally, towns, municipalities and improvement districts are responsible for fires on private lands, except where they have made agreements for my ministry to automatically step in. But we are aware that many communities do not have the people or the equipment to cope with major outbreaks, and we are ready to help out.

In addition, I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, that our fire control staff have a standing offer to any community to help train their people in firefighting techniques.

To sum up, the potential danger is great for the 1977 forest fire season because of conditions that have prevailed for some time. The concern felt in all parts of the province is quite valid, and we have spent the months since the last fire season preparing for this one.

I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that my ministry is doing its utmost to prevent serious fires from breaking out and, if they do break out, to get them under control with the utmost dispatch. If all sides work together under our leadership we have a solid chance of getting through this forest fire season in good shape.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I, on an opening point of order, simply raise the observation that there are only six members of the cabinet here and that a number of the ministers to whom questions would appropriately be put are not here, and that that, you might convey, sir, is really not desirable.

Mr. Ruston: They’re getting reserves in, Stephen.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: They may all be off drafting the terms of reference, Mr. Speaker, to accommodate us.

ENERGY REPORT

Mr. Lewis: May I, therefore, with enormous reluctance, and a total sense of futility, ask a question of the Minister of Energy. May I ask the minister, in the kindest way, when is he going to stop producing reports which simply reiterate the truths which all of us have heard 100 times over; and when will he stop producing reports that place the Ministry of Energy in the position of lackey to the thrust of Ontario Hydro? And when will the minister come in here with some specifics about what he intends to do in the way of renewable energy resources, rather than these meaningless futuristic documents?

Mr. Mackenzie: Like the Ministry of Energy --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I gather the Leader of the Opposition wants me to respond to that tirade.

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Mr. Kerrio: Thirty-five years of fumbling.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Because, in my estimation, it merely manifests an infinite unconcern about Ontario’s energy future.

Mr. Moffatt: Strike two.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition first take time to read this report.

Mr. Lewis: I have read the report.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: And then possibly he could come forward with some constructive --

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have read the report. It takes only 15 or 20 minutes to read; I read it very quickly between 10:00 and 10:15.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a further question?

Mr. Lewis: There is nothing in it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: His reading of it obviously hasn’t involved comprehension.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we have a more meaningful question period?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, in a very specific way: Isn’t this report simply the usual apologia -- as you can see from its content -- on our dependence on nuclear technology for the next 25 years, which everybody understands? Isn’t this report simply a repetition of recommendation 17 that prices to the consumer will have to go up -- which your government, as always, grants? Isn’t this report a recognition that the minister doesn’t have anything specific in the field of renewable energy resources that he is prepared to talk about in concrete ways? Why does he produce such documents?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, may I explain to the Leader of the Opposition that when you are talking about electrical energy, you are probably talking about less than a third of our energy.

Mr. Lewis: Of course.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: And this report covers the whole field of energy, not just electrical energy. If the Leader of the Opposition would look at that report and picture, if he can, the position of Ontario in the energy --

Mr. Lewis: We know the position.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- the whole field of energy.

Mr. Lewis: We know that.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The fact that Ontario imports 80 per cent of its energy --

Mr. Lewis: We know that.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The fact that Ontario --

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The fact that Ontario has been advocating and is advocating action now -- let’s face it --

An hon. member: Like what?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- it’s essential to establish an overall policy throughout Canada that is more than paper, but implementation of a programme.

Mr. Breithaupt: What are you doing?

An hon. member: Try your friend Lougheed.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Is the Leader of the Opposition interested in a dissertation on this, because I can take him through the steps as to what should be done in Canada?

Mr. Breithaupt: The federal government is at fault, I suppose.

An hon. member: You believe in motherhood too.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I can tell him what Ontario’s goal is, what Ontario has been doing and what we are urging others to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If the hon. member wishes, I would be delighted to take the time to lead him step by step through that so that he could have a greater appreciation and comprehension of our problems, instead of dealing with this matter in such a casual and irresponsible way.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has said it all before.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for a general discussion of the whole energy field or whatever it might be. This is time for questions and answers. Now, there has been a main question asked here.

Mr. Lewis: No further questions.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister, how does he manage, in a report of this nature, to totally discount the potential for renewable resources -- he does it here, in conclusion No. 9 -- when even the federal energy administration in the United States is projecting a solar component as one of the renewables -- as the minister knows, it’s only one -- a solar component of 25 per cent by the year 2020. How does the minister manage to discount renewable resources totally in this report?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: You say one per cent in this report.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the area of renewable resources is not discounted.

Mr. Lewis: They are, they are.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: They certainly are not. And if one looks to the future --

Mr. Lewis: We have looked.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You can’t even look to the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If one looks to the future, that is the thrust. One must distinguish too what one may be considering as solar energy in terms of electrical energy, and solar energy used for space heating or for water heating. There’s no way the United States is going to substitute solar energy for 25 per cent of its energy requirements by the end of this century.

Mr. Reed: The federal energy administration has set a goal.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It is preposterous.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, this is not a debating period, I will remind the hon. members again.

Mr. Moffatt: Supplementary: In conclusion No. 16 in the report, the minister indicates it is inequitable to consumers and irrational in terms of industrial development to escalate prices in an attempt to reduce energy consumption. Yet, through the other recommendations, there’s no mention of any concrete positive steps that his government will take in order to conserve energy in any form at this point. Does it not make sense to the minister that if that statement is true, then it is necessary that we conserve the resources we have at present.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if my friend would read the report he would see that the whole area of conservation is implicit in that report.

Mr. Moffatt: I have read the report.

Mr. Laughren: Implicit, but not explicit.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The members on the other side may believe in punitive pricing in the name of conservation.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s not get into a general discussion.

Mr. Moffatt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has just indicated that a statement contrary to the one I have just made is in the report. I’d like the minister to tell me which conclusion specifically talks about conservation.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, this is beginning to be a debate.

Mr. Lewis: I have another question. It is a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, we’ll go to a new question. We’ll call on the Leader of the Opposition for his second question.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, could I ask you who is the acting House leader? I want to place a question.

Mr. Deans: The Minister of Energy.

Mr. Reid: Will the guilty one please stand up?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest the hon. Leader of the Opposition ask one of the ministers and if the answer is not forthcoming they can transmit it.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, this is a joke.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member take his seat? The hon. Leader of the Opposition will continue.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, I have in front of me a letter addressed to the Hon. Pauline McGibbon dealing with the apparent resignation from the North Pickering royal commission of Mr. David Humphrey, one of the commissioners. It was just handed to me. It is obviously a matter of urgent importance. I would like to know which minister is acting as the acting House leader in the absence of the House leader (Mr. Welch), the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and many others, so I can put a question.

Mr. Speaker: May I suggest we give the hon. Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to come back to that question if the House leader returns?

Mr. Lewis: No, who is the acting House leader?

Mr. S. Smith: There has to be a House leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I can’t produce bodies, I must confess.

Mr. Ferris: And the ones they sent are disgusting.

Some hon. members: Adjourn the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We don’t need all that advice, either. If there is a minister here you may ask your question of him. Is there a further question now?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask --

MOTION TO ADJOURN

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Cunningham: If you ring the bells you might get them.

Mr. Sweeney: This morning is a joke.

Mr. Speaker: May I just remind the hon. members that this is just a head count, not a recorded vote.

[10:50]

The House divided on Mr. Smith’s motion to adjourn the House, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 20; nays 49.

Mr. Speaker: We will continue with the question period, there are about 49½ minutes left.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, we are wasting time now. Order.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition, I believe, had a final question.

NORTH PICKERING PROJECT

Mr. Lewis: Well, Mr. Speaker, the motion having achieved its desired effect, may I put to the Premier the following question:

Can we ask the Premier for direct and immediate attention to the resignation of David C. Humphrey as a commissioner in the North Pickering royal commission, which resignation has been tendered to the Hon. Pauline McGibbon, making the point in his letter of resignation that this hearing is not in the best interests of the participants, the public, or for that matter anyone? “It is clearly on a collision course with the proceedings at present being conducted by the Ombudsman under The Ombudsman Act,” et cetera; and obviously requires from the government an earnest and speedy reconciliation. Can the Premier act on it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In that the letter was not addressed to me, I have no immediate reply. I expect I will be getting a copy of the letter, at which time I will consider it, and I or the appropriate minister will be delighted to tell the House what our view of it is. I know nothing about it; I haven’t seen Mr. Humphrey’s letter.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if I may: Since the contents of Mr. Humphrey’s letter mirror almost exactly the observations of the second report of the select committee on the Ombudsman, indicating that everything will grind to a halt, there will be undue delays and total unfairness in the way the government has structured the inquiry commission in Pickering, can the Premier use this letter as a recourse for the appointment of a single commissioner, so that some justice can be provided for the claimants and the people affected?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we’re interested in seeing this matter brought to a conclusion. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that a single commissioner rather than -- and I think there were some discussions with the Ombudsman; we make every effort to accommodate the views of everybody on these issues -- if the Leader of the Opposition is saying that a single person commission is more acceptable, I find that interesting. I find it intriguing. I obviously can’t give any commitment until we have a chance to assess what Mr. Humphrey has said and his obvious point of view. As I say, I have not received his letter. I don’t know anything about it; he’s never discussed it with me. I’m not saying he should have, but he hasn’t.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier not agree that since Mr. Humphrey has resigned, that commission is functus -- that commission is over -- and there is no way, observing the natural course of justice, that it can continue. Having arrived at that point, would the Premier not agree it is most important to immediately reconstitute some form of inquiry with entirely new commissioners so we can get on with the important business that started this problem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t express as immediate a legal opinion as the member for Wilson Heights that by the resignation of one member of the commission that commission then, in law, is no longer in existence. I don’t have that instant legal knowledge available to me --

Mr. Singer: I said it’s functus -- you can’t carry on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t want to get into an argument in Latin with the hon. member. I don’t know whether it’s functus or not functus. I think it’s a question of whether it still has the legal authority to do business or not do business.

Mr. Singer: Fine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. In that I do not, and am not in a position to come up with an immediate legal opinion on a matter about which I knew nothing until two minutes ago; I must confess I don’t have the same degree of legal knowledge available to me as the member for Wilson Heights. I bow to his great expertise. However, I will --

Mr. Breithaupt: That wouldn’t stop the Attorney General.

Mr. Sargent: Ask McMurtry, he’ll tell you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I got my QC a year or two before him; that doesn’t mean anything.

Mr. MacDonald: You’re right.

Mr. Reid: That’s the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Doesn’t mean a thing. If the member for Kitchener got his it means even less.

Mr. Breithaupt: I know, but they were based on merit in my year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, they were based on merit when he got his? Well, I wouldn’t argue that for a moment. Let him tell his leader the rules of the House some day and he will perform a valid function.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we ignore the interjections?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, no more interjections.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, when he is considering the letter from Mr. Humphrey and the second report of the select committee, will the Premier consider the reconstruction of the commission to appoint (a) a single commissioner; (b) that the commissioner so appointed be advised or instructed to retain counsel for the commission -- which is an omission in the present commission; and (c) will the terms of reference of the Order in Council be amended to delete the phrase “of proceedings of an adversarial nature.” If those three steps can be taken, perhaps the matter can be concluded.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m prepared to consider anything that is reasonable. I’m only going by memory but my best recollection is that the suggestion for more than a single commissioner really didn’t emanate from us.

Mr. Renwick: I agree.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m glad you agree.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Humphrey would be excellent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well that is debatable.

Mr. Lewis: Are you besmirching him?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I’m not.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary: May I have the Premier’s attention? Accepting the Premier’s statement, Mr. Speaker, that the government was not aware of this until this morning, would the Premier not agree that this is a matter of sufficient urgency that the government should make every effort to resolve the situation, perhaps by Monday?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government makes an effort to resolve every significant issue as expeditiously as possible. Now we’re delayed from time to time by some members opposite, but we do make every effort to move as expeditiously as we can.

Mr. S. Smith: Come on, come on; at your salaries you can be here Friday morning.

POINT OF ORDER

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order. The leader of the Liberal Party has made some suggestion that it is my responsibility to be here on Friday morning.

Mr. S. Smith: Not yours, your cabinet.

[11:00]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I acknowledge that, and I want to inform him, in case he didn’t hear the statement by the House leader, that I was about 100 yards away at what I regard to be a relatively -- in fact I think significantly -- important meeting for the public of this province.

Mr. Lewis: Where were your colleagues?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is my responsibility to be chairing that particular meeting. I would say to the leader of the Liberal Party I was on a matter of public responsibility. I wasn’t in Brampton, Hamilton or Windsor playing tennis.

Mr. Breithaupt: I hope the other 20 cabinet members were as well.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, I took the Premier’s remarks to be personally insulting, Mr. Speaker. I would like to tell you the interjection to which he responded was: “At the salaries of your cabinet they could all be here in the morning.” It did not suggest that the Premier was doing something other than the public business. It suggested that somebody else should have been in the House conducting the business of the House for the government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think this should be the end to that matter.

Mr. Lewis: Why?

Mrs. Campbell: Why?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, I would like to ask the Speaker whether he might not directly intervene to suggest the value of cabinet attending in larger numbers on a Friday morning and in the process tell the Premier that these little delays and these little moments of controversy will not an election make. He will have to work a lot harder at it than that.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: I think we should get on with the business of the House.

Mr. Lewis: Just by the by, you are going to have to work a lot harder on these devices, a lot harder than that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You can vote against us Monday night.

An hon. member: We will.

Mr. Reid: I bet you will all be here Monday night.

Mr. Breithaupt: So will we.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So will you, and I know how you will vote.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

BARRIE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier: When the government accepted, as reported by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in his letter to the OMB, the Simcoe-Georgian task force report on the Barrie urban study boundaries, could the Premier tell us whether in accepting that task force report the government was accepting the actual boundaries suggested in that report, even though that report indicates that there is an excess of some 14,000 to 18,000 acres of what would normally be required, even for a population of 125,000?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure the Treasurer would be delighted to answer that question for the hon. member.

Mrs. Campbell: If he were here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I somehow sense that a question somewhat similar to that was asked yesterday. If it wasn’t, I am intrigued to know why it wasn’t.

Mr. S. Smith: It is a different one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Anyway the Treasurer will be delighted to answer that for the member. He might even call him a little later on. He is at the PMLC meeting at this moment. I am sure he would be quite prepared to enlighten him some time later on this morning.

Mr. Breithaupt: It should be answered in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary -- this was a different question today from the one asked the other day, and I am still waiting for answers to all of them -- could the Premier, when he is speaking with the Treasurer, kindly ask him as well to explain why it is that the government would consider accepting boundaries that are 18,000 acres too large, knowing that most of that land is prime agricultural land, in direct violation of the so-called green paper?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just have a note that the substitute chairman at the meeting down the hall is doing so well that I am excused for another few minutes. I will be delighted to acquaint the Treasurer with the member’s question.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since what we have at stake is another 9,000 acres of prime agricultural land, which is clearly and absolutely unnecessary for any population expansion in the area, why is the government prepared to allow the Barrie-Innisfil amalgamation to become another symbol of the Niagara regional kind, rather than intervening now and saying that government policy and the guidelines must be conformed with?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the Leader of the Opposition is anxious for another symbol that is his business. We are not interested in symbols. We are interested in practical solutions to problems that the people of this province face.

Mr. Lewis: You are letting this agricultural land go.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are interested in practical solutions to the problems we face.

Mr. Lewis: What about your own policies?

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No, the member for Hamilton West. We are getting into a debate here again.

Mrs. Campbell: We are not allowed to?

WOMEN CROWN EMPLOYEES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Labour, on a different topic, Mr. Speaker: In view of the recently issued second annual report on the status of women Crown employees, stating that more than half a million dollars -- I gather it is more than $645,000 -- has been spent on the so-called affirmative action programme and that this has resulted in only 130 significant advancements achieved in the female labour force of 25,832 people, can the minister explain how the spending of $645,000 to improve the lot of about 130 people can be justified?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The expenditure is not related only to those women who have made the decision to move from the traditional jobs for females within the Crown employee situation, Mr. Speaker. It also relates to expenditures for seminars, for all women employees in the ministries, to encourage them to consider this kind of activity, to provide them with the kind of stimuli which many of the young women need to make decisions about careers which are different from those which are traditionally chosen.

I think it is money very well spent, because the women who have been involved in the programmes are enthusiastic about them and I am sure that the hon. member will see next year that there will be a very much larger number of women Crown employees who will be moving from the traditional job positions for females to others through the bridging system which has been developed in almost all ministries.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, could the minister undertake to table as soon as possible -- or perhaps she already has the information and can tell us now -- how many women in the whole government are currently on the list of senior appointments; that is, executive director or higher? How many women are on that list, compared to the total number of employees at that level or above?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I can’t tell the hon. member precisely at this moment, but I shall find out.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: May I ask the minister how much of this money is being spent on informing the members of the public service about the affirmative action programmes and the seminars?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I believe that most of this money is being spent on the information process, which is both in printed form and in verbal form, as the hon. member knows, through the women’s co-ordinators in the various ministries.

Mr. S. Smith: As a final supplementary, would the minister contact her colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth), on this particular topic and ask him for an explanation as to why it is that so few women have been appointed police commissioners in the province of Ontario, despite his promise to increase that particular number?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. Foulds: A new question of the Minister of Natural Resources as a result of his statement this morning.

Mr. Mancini: Welcome back, Jim. Nice to have you.

Mr. Sargent: Welcome back, Jimmy.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. Could the minister -- how does it feel to inherit his predecessor’s accumulated slash as one of the problems --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we ask a question of urgent public importance?

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: On a more serious note, Mr. Speaker, is it true --

Mr. Lewis: You will never make it in this ministry, Frank. Never.

Mr. Foulds: Is it true, as the minister’s statement seems to indicate, that heavy slash is one of the major dangers that faces us with regard to forest fires, as well as being one of the major impediments to his ministry’s reforestation programme? Further, could the minister indicate why he is so optimistic that minimal interference with other ministry programmes or activities will take place? And could he describe the nasty tricks of nature? Do those nasty tricks of nature include the continuation of the drought?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The hon. member is just leading with his chin on that last one. The nasty tricks of nature often sit opposite me.

(Applause.)

Mr. MacDonald: That impressed the minister’s colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: Now, could we get back to business? Order.

Mr. Lewis: That is more in order than anything that has happened in the last 24 hours.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister answer the question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I hope the member has received the material I sent him. I also sent a second copy -- I didn’t know whether he was the official critic or not -- so he now has two copies of the same material, I would assume.

Mr. Reid: He has read them both.

Hon. F. S. Miller: To be sure, we sent him the material on the drought situation up north, and I think he will find it delineates three types of risk in the forest: The very sensitive small brush and material that can really change from day to day in its fire sensitivity; the first few inches of the soil, which takes several days to either dry out or recover; and of course the deeper ground. Our problem in the north is that through natural decay, wind action, previous fires -- all kinds of things -- there’s a lot of material buried under the subsoil which traditionally would not likely burn, but this year it might so the risks are very high.

Now I go on to the next part of the question -- how can I be sure that the other programmes of the ministry will go on? I think you have to realize that the key people we are asking to transfer are those who can supervise fires. Therefore, it’s not the great number of people carrying out the regular programmes of the ministry, but ones already in those activities who are trained in firefighting. We’ve also set a pecking order for which ones go first; and the ones that go last are those involved in reforestation. That is, to me, the most important of the programmes to be maintained this summer. I hope that with that kind of explanation, I can be reasonably sure that the important programmes are carried out whilst we have people on a standby for a transfer for forest firefighting.

Mr. Foulds: One quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is there any co-ordination between your ministry and the Fire Marshal’s office under the Solicitor General; particularly with regard to the minimal programmes that that ministry has in training of volunteer fire departments in unorganized territories? I understand they only have two people to train those volunteer fire departments which are responsible for fighting fires in unorganized territories, fires that could escalate into major forest fires which would be the responsibility of the ministry.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m sure the member knows that we have agreements with many municipalities, and I assume if they’re unorganized --

Mr. Foulds: Unorganized.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The reason they are unorganized is that the land is Crown land. We charge five cents an acre to take over the forest fire responsibility for a township’s private land. That’s a pretty cheap fee to transfer the responsibility for firefighting to the Crown. Even if that five cents per acre isn’t agreed to in advance by any form of municipal government, and a fire starts on private land, our people are available to go in and fight it, simply because it often extends quickly to our land. If that happens, we’ll charge back the full, direct costs to any existing municipality. So I would suggest to municipalities which think they shouldn’t spend a nickel per acre that they surely should, and thus transfer a great deal of responsibility. But, in addition, in the statement you may have noticed that we offered to train those people. Our ministry offered to train fire-fighting people for bush fires; that offer is still good.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the minister has an extra $1 million in equipment, will he provide some of that equipment to some of the townships in unorganized communities that don’t have pumps, hoses and so on? And does he have auxiliary plans for hiring university students and high school students in the upper grades in case more manpower is needed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The loaning of equipment isn’t a totally black or white issue, as I understand it Under certain circumstances, it could be done but it’s frowned upon, really, when in fact we can encourage the groups to have their own. The second part of the question: The 200 people I referred to in the statement are 200 stand-by people, to be well trained, hopefully, to act as group leaders to use people like school students should the fire risk become intense. Yes, we would be using them.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Would the Minister of Natural Resources speak to his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and convince him that smoke detectors are no substitute for fire-fighting equipment?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The import is lost upon me, but I’ll be pleased to do so.

[11:15]

UTDC FOREIGN CONTRACTS

Mr. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Given that his ministry has had some involvement in the Urban Transportation Development Corporation use of foreign sales agents, will he tell the House whether such agents are being used in deals other than the Caracas subway deal? Specifically, how many other agents is his ministry using on behalf of the UTDC; what deals they are working on; and what we’re paying them?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my ministry has not retained the services of any agents in the world market. Any agents that would have been retained would be by UTDC, and by the authority and approval of cabinet, and I know of none.

CONSUMERS ROAD INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: I raised with the minister in the House on Friday, April 1, by way of a question, a request for further involvement by his ministry in helping to resolve the severe traffic problems associated with the Consumers Road industrial subdivision, in view of the fact that the traffic congestion is adversely affecting the movement of traffic on provincial Highway 404 at the Sheppard Avenue interchange.

Would the minister, in the light of the announcement on Tuesday of this week by Marathon Realty Limited to build a $100 million office complex in the Consumers Road area, bringing thousands of more workers into the area --

Mr. Conway: Speech.

Mr. Williams: -- be prepared to immediately initiate such further impact studies, discussions and action as may be necessary to ensure a final solution to the traffic congestion problem at the Don Valley Parkway-Sheppard Avenue interchange?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, my ministry officials have been working very closely with the borough of North York, the borough of Scarborough and the Metropolitan Toronto roads commission officials to try to assist them wherever possible in bringing about improvements to that particular traffic situation. The matter that the member refers to, relating to Highway 404, I was not aware of, but I will certainly have my officials look into it.

WCB CLAIMS DELAYS

Mr. Laughren: A question to the Minister of Labour: Is the minister aware that the administrative delays and bungling at the Workmen’s Compensation Board have become so bad that injured workers in the Ottawa area are going to the Unemployment Insurance Commission to apply for sickness benefits rather than cope with the frustrations of dealing with the WCB?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, and I would truly appreciate knowing how many injured workers have been so moved.

Mr. Laughren: There shouldn’t be any.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I gather that there were 10 in attendance at the meeting which was held in Ottawa yesterday.

I am aware that there have been some delays and those situations for which I have been given both the name and the compensation number of the individual, I have investigated personally in order to find out the source of the delay, because in determining where delays are occurring it is possible to concentrate the efforts to ensure that, indeed, this does not happen in the future.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary merged with a point of order, I should point out to the minister that, as usual, her facts are incorrect.

Mr. Lewis: Always; she has never got it right.

Mr. Laughren: There was 50 or 60 injured workers at that meeting, not 10.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Did the member say Ottawa or Oshawa?

Mr. Lewis: Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is that a supplementary question?

Mr. Laughren: My supplementary is this, Mr. Speaker: That not only are the injured workers going to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but is she aware that there is almost a complete lack of vocational rehabilitation services being offered to injured workers in the Ottawa area, as well as other communities I might add?

Mr. Reid: Anywhere.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there has been a dearth of vocational rehabilitation officers, and as a matter of fact, within the past four weeks the Workmen’s Compensation Board of this province has accepted a recommendation from the rehabilitation services branch that there be a massive increase in the number of vocational rehabilitation officers. Recruiting has begun, the training programmes have begun and, indeed, the specific concern of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for this part of its function is one to which it has recommitted itself.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Of this massive number, how many in fact are being hired?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not absolutely positive of the number but it seems to me it is somewhere in the region of 80 or 90.

Mr. Deans: That has never stopped you before.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Would the minister contact the Workmen’s Compensation Board and have them send, rather than the three people who are now bird-dogging our task force, people to the meeting who can count?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. Don’t say anything that is given to you by the board.

Mr. Speaker: Is there no answer? All right, the member for Renfrew North.

ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr. Conway: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources. I would ask the secretary what is the position of the government, at this point in time, with respect to implementing that portion of the Algonquin Park master plan which calls for the complete withdrawal of the use of small outboard motors in Algonquin Provincial Park? What decision has been made on that portion of the implementation of the master plan, particularly for this coming season?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, that policy will be announced very soon.

Mr. Conway: In that regard, can the secretary perhaps tell me now, or perhaps later, on what authority the government member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Rollins) has at three public meetings announced, specifically and without equivocation, that in fact that determination has been made; and that for the third year in a row, I believe, the Algonquin Park master plan to that extent will not be complied with? What authority has he had, if any, for those protestations?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I can’t speak for the member for Hastings-Peterborough, Mr. Speaker, but as I just mentioned to the member that policy will be announced in the very near future.

Mr. Wildman: Could the minister indicate if there is any kind of time limit within which the government will require master plans for provincial parks to come into effect; or do they continue to go on and on and on, like the Lake Superior Park where it’s been in effect since 1946 and we still don’t have a master plan in effect?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It’s an ongoing review, Mr. Speaker. I couldn’t tell the hon. member just when it will be finalized.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary from the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Is it not true that the regulations, as indicated by my colleague in the previous question, have in fact been published in the Ontario Gazette some two years ago? And why is it those regulations are not being followed?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The matter the hon. member has raised, about the size of the outboard motors, I believe was not one of the regulations that was published three years ago. This is a subsequent regulation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has a question.

STRIKE CONTROL

Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the Solicitor General is one of the remaining 20 people in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; will the hon. member please state his question?

Mr. Warner: In the interests of safety, both for the policemen and those who are on strike, will the Solicitor General direct the leadership of his office toward the Metro Toronto Police Force so that mounted policemen will not be used at any strike location -- in particular the present situation at Becker’s milk plant in Scarborough?

Mr. Lewis: Incredible.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding that the mounted police are one of the best and safest means the police have of controlling crowds. It is their responsibility, as we all know, to keep the peace and to see that the law is enforced. If they, in their wisdom, feel that the mounted police are the best way to do it, I certainly don’t intend to ask them to do otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Warner: Is the Solicitor General aware that the use of the horses at the Becker’s milk plant, when added to the condoning of strike breakers and the Milk Marketing Board continuing to supply milk there, has heightened the potential of violence?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, sir.

Mr. Riddell: Do you want the farmers to drink their milk?

Mr. Breithaupt: You should use cows not horses.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: May I ask the Solicitor General: When a company like Becker’s, under these circumstances, request this extra kind of police protection, is there a charge made to them so that it doesn’t have to be picked up by the public purse?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t believe so, sir. I don’t know who requested the extra policemen. I don’t even know if they had been requested, because generally it is a police responsibility to move in automatically when they feel there is any kind of danger that crowds may get out of control.

Mr. Lewis: Since when is a picket line --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A final supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: In view of the fact that one of your predecessors -- that goes way back, Allan Lawrence -- indicated, in a strike in my area where they were bringing police in and there were no disorders at all, that he would consider the proposition of an extra charge to discourage this use of the public law enforcement agency for strictly private purposes; would the Solicitor General, in light of that, consider the matter further?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as I said. I am not so sure where the request has come from. It is a responsibility of the police to maintain law and order and to move in where they think they can keep people from being injured. The very purpose of the presence of the police is to keep the peace.

Mr. MacDonald: Sometimes they provoke it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That may be so, but I will investigate this and see who has requested that the police be there. I assume it has been done at their own initiative, but I am not sure of that.

ST. NICHOLAS ARENA

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation: Is the minister aware of a recent case involving the fraudulent use of $20,000 in Wintario grants by the St. Nicholas arena in Toronto. and would he comment on the number of charges of fraud that have been levied against recipients?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The answer to the first part of that question is yes, but the matter is now, of course, before the courts and I don’t think it would be wise to discuss it. That’s the only knowledge of such charges that I have at the moment.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Does the minister perform any audits on lottery grants, and how many audits have been performed, if any, on the $111 million in grants in 1975?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, so there is no misunderstanding, commitments are one thing, the actual cash flow is another. I think the member would understand that.

Mr. Ferris: You are not kidding.

Mr. Riddell: We know that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Naturally people are very anxious to have the commitment in order to go to the private sector. We do have procedures for spot checks as far as audit is concerned. I don’t have that detail here with me, but I would be glad to provide that for the member.

QUEBEC WORKERS

Mr. Samis: A question to the Minister of Labour: In view of the ongoing problem of Quebec workers, especially in the building trades, working in Ontario and taking away jobs from tradesmen in this province, can the minister tell us what her ministry is doing to try and solve this long standing problem?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have had over the past year discussions with the officials of the Ministry of Labour in the province of Quebec and, on at least one occasion, a discussion with the then Minister of Labour. The difficulty is that, of course, the province of Quebec has been less welcoming to Ontario workers than Ontario has been to Quebec workers and there is no border. One does not require a passport to cross the Ottawa river.

It is a difficult problem, one where I think a frontal attack upon at this stage of the game might, indeed, enhance the spirit of conflict and confrontation which is presently there, but we are continuing to examine it. One of our ministry officials has made a specific personal examination of the problems inherent therein. We have had preliminary discussions about that examination within the ministry and it is presently under review in our ministry.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that this problem has been with us for many years, and in view of the fact that three successive governments in Quebec have taken a pretty well identical stand -- two of those governments being strongly federalist -- is the minister prepared to take any action whatsoever, if the talks prove unsuccessful, to introduce parallel legislation to protect Ontario tradesmen?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am not really sure that introducing that kind of legislation would be in the best interests of Canada. However, it would hopefully, serve the purpose of improving employment opportunities for Ontario workers within the Ottawa-Hull region, which is the major problem. We have the same kind of difficulty, as I am sure the hon. member knows, on the other border, where we have at the present time approximately 900 workers from the United States working in Sarnia. There is, of course, some slightly different basis in factual reason for it, but the effect is exactly the same. They are not problems which are easy to solve. We have discussed those which we have on the Quebec-Ontario border with the Minister of Labour of Canada, and will be discussing them with him again next week, because we hope he might be able to help us to resolve at least some of the difficulties. The extra requirements which the Quebec government has instituted over the past many years are, indeed, I think not the kinds of procedures which the Ontario government should consider, particularly at this time.

[11:30]

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Has the Minister of Labour seen, for example, the reciprocal agreement arrived at in November, 1975, I believe, with the corresponding ministers of transportation and communications for the two provinces? Is she contemplating that kind of an arrangement to redress the irritations to which my hon. friend from Cornwall has made reference?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That was exactly the kind of procedure that we were attempting to develop. It has not been a receptive group in the Ministry of Labour on the other side of the Ottawa river, and they have not looked with favour upon that kind of situation.

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES

Mr. Sargent: This will be a three-part question, like the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) had a few minutes ago. It was to have gone to the Premier, but it’s hard to find anyone with any authority.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member just place his question, please?

Mr. Sargent: So I’ll give it to the Minister of Industry and Tourism, who has as little authority as anybody I know.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the statement in the Toronto Star yesterday that the current policy of the government is the same old remedy of fighting inflation on the backs of the unemployed, and since the minister is involved in industry, hopefully --

Mr. Grossman: Question.

Mr. Sargent: -- in view of the fact that in 1975, when inflation was raging unchecked, this government body in two budgets just prior to the election to stimulate the economy, included $500 million in election gimmicks; in view of the fact that today --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member not build up a long case? Will he ask his question? Thank you.

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t embarrass the government.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, you allowed the member for Oriole to go on for about five minutes, and I’m trying to put my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: It’s about the unemployed people of this province. Have some heart up there.

Mrs. Campbell: Exactly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I point out to all hon. members that most of the questions are too long and many of the answers are too long as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member please refrain from the comments he’s making, if he wishes to continue? Will he continue now and ask his question?

Mr. Sargent: Today we have control over inflation for the next year or so. In this time of emergency, when 300,000 people in Ontario are in desperate need of a job and thousands of high school students are coming on stream in another few weeks and university students --

Mr. Sweeney: It’s 700,000.

Mr. Sargent: -- I want the Minister of Industry and Tourism, to give him a job to do for once and to prove something, to tell me why the government can’t immediately put some of the $600 million it has going into parkway or other land acquisition or some of the $100 million it’s going to pay to Syncrude into creating jobs? Tell us too when the government can juggle the books to find money to buy votes for an election, why it can’t juggle the books to find jobs for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am sure the member is aware of the fact that, come next Tuesday evening, there shall be a rather interesting document placed before this House. I trust at that time there will be answers to his questions.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Can his ministry tin anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously the question the member raised is not one that’s directed to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism but to the minister of finance or Treasurer.

DRG GLOBE ENVELOPES LIMITED

Mr. Grande: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Given the fact that the Minister of Health answered with some speed a question regarding senior citizens getting ripped off in nursing homes, will the Minister of Labour attempt to answer the question I put in this Legislature on December 6 last year concerning the appalling working conditions at DRG Globe Envelopes?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sorry, it was my understanding that we had answered all questions which had been put to the Ministry of Labour in the last session. If we have not, I apologize. The answer will be forthcoming.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON UNIVERSITY AFFAIRS

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities: Given the fact that the Ontario Council of University Affairs is the chief advisory body to his ministry with respect to policy direction, spending and so on, what criteria does he use in selecting the members for that advisory body?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would reply to the member this way, Mr. Speaker, that that’s a fairly extensive process. We attempt to consider a large number of factors. I think that if the hon. member would locate their home residences, for instance, on a map, he’d find that it does an excellent job of covering all this province.

We obviously therefore try to distribute the membership throughout the province. We try to distribute the membership through a large age grouping, as we would not want everyone from a senior citizen group of our society, nor would we want them as all young members of our society.

I am trying to convey to the member that in forming a board of that importance, we make a very conscientious effort to have as broad a representation of the community at large, all things being considered, as it is possible to do.

Mr. Sweeney: That being the case, would the minister not agree that if there is going to be a student representative on that advisory body, the various student associations through this province should at least be consulted as to whether or not they have recommendations to make?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member makes a very basic error in that we do not appoint a representative of any specific group in society. There are young people on that council, but they do not represent a specific group.

Mr. Conway: Not even the Tories.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is indeed an excellent member who happens to be very knowledgeable in labour negotiations, but he does not represent the union section of society. There are people involved in management. They are not there because they happen to represent management. It is a cross-section of the people of this province that we try to reflect in those appointments and not representatives of a specific group.

DROUGHT TASK FORCE

Mr. Foulds: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: On March 24, in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal, there was an announcement of a task force comprised of ministry personnel to study the drought situation in northwestern Ontario. Could he indicate to the House the authority of that task force, what reports it has made to the ministry or the cabinet, and what concrete steps the five ministries involved are taking with regard to the problems excluding the forest fire situation in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I’d be pleased to get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Presenting reports.

REPORT

Mrs. Campbell from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following application for a private Act and finds the notices as published sufficient:

Village of Port McNicoll.

Your committee further recommends that, in accordance with the order of the House of March 31, paragraph 7, the latest annual reports of all agencies, boards, and commissions be referred to the committee.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

AIRPORTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend The Airports Act.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 35, An Act to amend The Public Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The amendment to The Public Vehicles Act which I’ve just introduced will clarify the situation regarding car pools and van pools as they relate to The Public Vehicles Act and will really exempt any requirement for car pools or van pools to be licensed under that Act.

POINT OF ORDER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day -- and I’ve waited until now because I didn’t want to take any more time away from the question period than the division bells were already taking away -- I would like to raise a couple of matters of order, and perhaps you may want to rule on them later. They have to do with what happened this morning.

Mr. Conway: Here it comes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I want to draw attention to standing order 31 which deals with motions to adjourn the House. I would like to suggest that the procedure followed this morning was very irregular and contrary to the rules.

Mr. Moffatt: The House leader should be here.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, there is no rule about the attendance of the House leader as there is no rule about the attendance of the member for Durham East. However, standing order 31 is fairly clear. It says: “A motion to adjourn the House or the debate is in order any time after the orders of the day or notices of motion have been entered up, but may be made prior thereto only by leave of the House.”

I suggest that the procedure followed this morning was contrary to the rule and I think that the record should be quite clear on that matter so that we can avoid --

An hon. member: There were no ministers in their chairs.

Mr. Lewis: You are right.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- what I would consider today to be an irresponsible activity on the part of the third party --

Mr. Sweeney: Irresponsible on your part.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- to frustrate the carrying out of the routine proceedings of this House which are quite clearly set out in the rules.

Mr. Conway: Did the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston) second that motion?

Hon. Mr. Welch: With respect to routine proceedings, it’s quite clear if one looks at standing order 23, which is very specific, that routine proceedings precede the orders of the day. I don’t know whether I have to make any other point except to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rule 31 of the House with respect to what happened today.

I’m also very anxious -- and I’ve been anxious to do this for some time but I didn’t want it to be interpreted as being overly sensitive personally -- to clear up some misunderstanding, particularly by the leader of the third party, with respect to the role of the House leader. In some exchange today with the Premier, he talked about nobody being here “to conduct the business of the House.”

Mr. Speaker, I thought that’s what you did. I thought that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly was in fact in charge of the House and, secondly, that he, the Speaker, and all members of the House are governed by what the rules say are the routine proceedings and that we proceed with the routine proceedings.

Any discretion that is left with any minister designated as House leader takes effect only when we reach the orders of the day. I think that’s quite clear with respect to the rules, that the discretion with respect to the calling of the business then comes into effect when the orders of the day are called. Prior to that time I assumed the Speaker and the House are governed by the rules which set out the order for routine proceedings. Although we’re all entitled to have our fun, I would assume that in the interests of the orderly conduct of the work of this particular House we would do this.

Mr. Sweeney: We didn’t consider it funny.

Mr. Sargent: There was no House leader there and no acting House leader.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The fact of there being no one here designated as the House leader at the moment was very relevant to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition, who had some difficulty at that time -- which is another point -- in placing a question to someone of a general nature because the specific minister wasn’t here.

Mr. Conway: It was a difficulty shared by us all.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It was a reasonable question for the Leader of the Opposition to ask who was in fact designated at the moment, “so I can direct my question to that particular person.” That was, as far as I’m concerned, a reasonable inquiry.

Mr. Kerrio: We are glad you are willing to listen to reason.

Hon. Mr. Welch: But the procedure that followed, that is, for the leader of the third party to stand up and move adjournment and then start talking about who’s here conducting the business of the House, I assume --

Mr. Sargent: What are they going to talk about, the Blue Jays?

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- we would chalk that up to lack of experience, which no doubt will not be improved upon because he won’t be here that long to have it improved upon anyway.

Mr. Sweeney: You are making a mockery of the Legislature.

[11:45]

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the hon. member for Kitchener wish to make a comment on this point of order?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, only with respect to some of the perhaps more unfortunate remarks of the government House leader, which unfortunately became somewhat more personal than I would have hoped they might.

Mr. Sweeney: Church is Sunday.

Mr. Breithaupt: The difficulty that we faced this morning was with respect to the ability of opposition members to ask questions of the responsible ministers; and I am quite aware, of course, that Mr. Speaker has no control over the attendance of any members of the House. The points dealt with were dealt with specifically to draw attention to the fact that perhaps because of other duties in other places, there were only six ministers of the Crown present.

This is an unfortunate circumstance, but one which it was believed had to be brought clearly to the attention of the ministry, because the whole functioning of the question period, now that it has been extended to an hour, will obviously collapse if there is no one here of whom questions may be asked.

It is true, of course, that questions can be asked particularly, no doubt, of the ministers who were present, but in certain other issues of the day there was the requirement at least, and one expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, to place a certain question dealing with the recent resignation of Mr. Humphrey from a commission.

There was no one to whom that question could be put and, of course, Mr. Speaker, it is entirely out of your competence to suggest it be put to any particular other minister in the absence of having someone at least generally available to have that question put, even as notice. That has happened on occasion with the various secretaries for Resources or Social Development and questions have then been passed on to their appropriate ministers.

That opportunity wasn’t available to us this morning, and as a result the procedure developed as it did. I would suggest that the problem can be avoided if there is some attempt to at least encourage government ministers to be present, particularly on days such as a Friday when other trips or other plans might have them elsewhere.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before you say something about this I want to add a comment. First of all, the fact that the ministers weren’t present isn’t surprising. This has been one of the problems of this House for some considerable period of time. In fact, for as long as I have been here, Friday mornings have been unproductive because of the inability of the government to get ministers into their seats. I don’t think we should have been surprised by that, although this morning was particularly bad.

I do want to raise with you the matters of order, and to suggest to you that it is inappropriate for the Speaker to accept a motion from a member who has risen on a point of order. The leader of the third party rose supposedly on a point of order. Your only function in that, if I may say so, sir, to you, was to decide whether or not he had a point of order. You should not have accepted a motion to adjourn on that pretext.

Mr. Sargent: You voted for it.

Mr. Deans: I did not.

Mr. Sargent: Your party did.

Mr. Deans: I did not. I make the point with you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be very helpful if we were to have some clear definition of what is acceptable under a point of order. A point of privilege is a different matter altogether to be heard --

Mr. Sargent: What a bunch of nonsense. What nonsense is that?

Mr. Deans: -- but even on a point of privilege, I put to you that you cannot move a motion. A motion can only be moved by a speaker who has been regularly recognized for the purpose of speaking.

Mr. Sargent: You are out of order yourself.

Mr. Deans: I am not out of order. In fact I am very much in order. It is probably the only point of order that has been valid all day.

Mr. Kerrio: Why didn’t you think of that earlier?

Mr. Deans: That’s the reason, incidentally, why we didn’t support the motion.

Mr. Kerrio: That is not the reason.

Mr. Sargent: Oh come on.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Kerrio: I bet he bets the horses after the race is over.

Mr. Deans: I can well understand that the Speaker might not be totally familiar with all of the new rules, any more than any other member would be totally familiar with all of the new rules -- I can even understand that the Speaker might not be completely familiar with all of the old rules -- but I do think that there are certain rules that we have to all understand, and the one rule is this, that you cannot rise on one pretext in order to raise a matter completely unrelated.

Hon. Mr. Welch: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues, the two House leaders, in speaking to this question with respect to the orderly running of the House. The attendance of my colleagues is one matter; and I want to say that I thought at the beginning of this morning’s session I was, in part, addressing myself to that by announcing the private meeting, involving a number of my colleagues, that was going on in the building. I thought that particular message would be clear. In fact, I was prepared, if asked, to indicate the members of the executive council who were at that meeting, along with others who were there. I had the list right here.

I am not speaking to the question of attendance; the members opposite are quite entitled to make whatever comments they want with respect to that matter. And that really isn’t the reason I rose today on this particular point. I felt I had to make the comment. Unfortunately, it has been interpreted as being overly personal, but I felt that some of the comments made by the leader of the third party with respect to the conduct of the business of the House had to be clarified -- once again, in the spirit of the orderly running of the House. It is not unrelated to some other matters with respect to the committee structure, which is all in place now because of a great deal of cooperation. I would hope that would continue.

The important thing is that there are, perhaps, other ways to address this question of attendance, rather than trying to find some way to bend a rule or to follow the procedure that was done today. I simply repeat that I think it would be wise to clarify rule standing order 31, and to clarify the position of the person designated as House leader, being very clear, as far as I am concerned, what rule 24 confers on that particular cabinet minister. Any discretion applies only after the routine proceedings have been dealt with in the House.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, if I could comment on this very briefly, I don’t want to prolong this because it could get into a debate --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we should get on --

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Are you rising on a point of order now?

Mr. Cunningham: Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we should just get on with the business of the House. And I think the points --

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: This is the gist of the conversation. I’ll hear the member briefly.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader in his remarks implied -- partially in error, I would think -- our party was possibly raising this matter with fun in mind. I just wanted -- for purpose of the record -- to correct that, as sincerely as I can. I am correcting the record, if I might.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is the gist of many of the remarks. People rise on points of order and they really want to debate some matter; that is really not a point of order. I think the points that the member for Wentworth made were well made. The House leader’s comment about the policing of the order: my preliminary examination of that order would tend to give credence to that interpretation of it; and, in my opinion, the motion should not have been accepted, at the present. I take responsibility for that. We will study all the comments that have been made and will undoubtedly have further comments to make at the first of the week.

Orders of the day.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Mancini: I am pleased to rise and resume the debate. But before I do, I surely must take the opportunity to comment on what happened this morning. And, surely, the issue in question is the fact that members of the opposition, who are in a majority in this House, did not have the opportunity to question the government ministers. If, on Friday mornings, the best turnout they are going to have is five or six cabinet ministers out of 26, I sincerely hope that they will talk among each other so that they will be able to give the opposition members a better opportunity to find out what is going on in this province. That way, we can report to our constituents, as is our job.

Mr. Conway: One of these days they’ll learn something about the supremacy of Parliament.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I left off I was on the topic of farm gasoline. I was mentioning that it was very unfortunate that the farmers of Essex county and many farmers across the province of Ontario are paying more for gasoline while they’re purchasing in bulk than when they buy at the retail level.

I also mentioned it was very unfortunate that every time we put a question to the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. V. Newman) it seemed to me his only response is a direct attack on the federal Minister of Agriculture. Surely he can be like the present Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller); I think maybe the Minister of Agriculture and Food should stop and listen to some of that minister’s answers.

I would just like to say that the Minister of Natural Resources’ answers are direct, straightforward and honest and really that’s all the members on the opposite side of the House here are asking for. All we want is a direct, straight and honest answer. If the Minister of Agriculture and Food for Ontario can’t do anything about the problem which I raised on April 6 -- if he can’t do anything about the fact that farmers are paying more for bulk gasoline than they do at the retail level -- then he should just stand up and say so and give the reasons why.

While I’m on the topic of agriculture I would just like to point out that in the riding of Essex South we have possibly 75 per cent of all the greenhouse operations in Canada. This is a multi-million dollar industry in my riding; it provides a tremendous amount of jobs. There’s tremendous investment and it surely is the cornerstone of the farming in my particular riding. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I’ve raised the question in the House that the greenhouse industry is under severe pressure due to increases in energy. I would just like to point this out here to the members of the assembly and especially to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Even though he’s not here today, I’m sure that he’ll take interest and read my remarks in Hansard.

I just want to point out that if something is not done soon, either by way of some kind of subsidy for their energy costs, or possibly by finding a new source of energy, such as solar heating, the greenhouse industry is not going to survive much longer. Last year they were under terrible pressure, not only from the high cost of energy but from the tremendous amount of cheap imports that were on the market that they had to compete with.

Here in Ontario the farmers must pay a higher minimum wage than they do in many parts of the world. That is coupled with the initial cost of construction for the greenhouses and further coupled with the tremendous cost of energy. I just don’t know how the greenhouse industry is going to be able to take it much longer. I know that some of the people in that industry have branched out and have gone into flowers, such as roses and lilies and that type of thing, but the bulk of the people in the industry have stuck with their regular crops of tomatoes and cucumbers. I just want to really emphasize the point that the industry is in trouble and we’d better take a good look at it soon.

I would like to speak to the new reform on property taxation which has been kicked around a great deal by the Treasurer of our province. I would like to read from the background report that the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs committee sends out. This one is dated April 1, 1977. One page nine, section 6, where the heading is “Property Tax Reform,” it states: “The Treasurer said the report was well written” -- and he is referring to the Blair commission report -- “The Treasurer states that the report was well-written, with local recommendations, and he had hoped that the municipalities would read the full report and be willing to accept the challenge.”

[12:00]

I think that very clearly states the intentions of the Treasurer of this province. I’m sorry to say that if the present government receives another majority, this programme will be implemented in the same fashion as regional government was implemented some time ago, against local wishes and against much, much opposition.

I would just like to speak to some of the sections which cause me a great concern and which cause many of my constituents a great concern. Mr. Speaker, regarding proposal four dealing with farm land: presently the farmers receive 50 per cent of their property tax in a rebate form. They seem to be satisfied with this type of rebate and there appears to me to be no overwhelming cry from the farmers in my area that they need more as far is a property tax rebate.

However, the Treasurer feels that it’s the responsibility of his government, as stated in budget paper E, that they should pay a full 100 per cent of the property tax. I believe that this is wrong. I believe that it will some day take the farms away from the farmers, and I also believe that the farmers want to feel as if they’re paying their fair share in this great province.

It was quite interesting that the Blair commission found out that this is exactly how the farmers feel -- that they do want to pay their taxes. Their recommendation was that the province pay 90 per cent in a tax rebate form and that the farmers pay the other 10 per cent. I personally -- and I’m sure we all on this side of the House -- find this a ridiculous answer to the problems that we are facing today.

I’d like to move on to proposal seven dealing with exempt property. Today, as we know, people like the Girl Guides and the Boy Scouts and the YMCA and other very good institutions such as that are now exempt from property tax -- places like private schools. In my own riding we have a private school which is run by the Mennonite community. This school has been built from donations from this community and they pay the whole cost themselves. They’ve expanded their institution just recently. I believe it was last year that they opened up a $500,000 gymnasium and auditorium and there wasn’t one penny from outside their community -- there wasn’t one penny from the Ontario government. This is a group of industrious people who are trying to take care of themselves. And what does this government propose? It proposes to tax them.

Surely we cannot accept this. I sincerely hope that many of the people in my riding understand this issue and that many people across the province understand it. In the Blair commission report, they also acknowledge some of this. It was their recommendation to the Treasurer that local boards be set up to hear these charitable institutions and private schools like the Mennonite schools which I’ve just mentioned in order that they may apply for an exemption in order to get a grant so that they can pay their taxes with this grant.

How much bureaucracy do we need? First, we have a system which is going to be set up to tax charitable institutions and private schools and take their money away. Then we’re going to set up another level of bureaucracy which is going to meet with his people to see if they’re going to have their money back, and they may get it back and they may not. That’s truly a bureaucrat’s dream and a people’s nightmare.

I would now like to comment on proposal, 5 which is of real concern to me and which is of real concern to the small business community of Essex South. As you know, Mr. Speaker, presently there are different rates under the business assessment. I would just like to mention that car parks pay 25 per cent; retail stores pay 30 per cent; industry pays 60 per cent; financial institutions such as banks pay 75 per cent, and distilleries pay 140 per cent. Under this proposal, the business assessment would be changed so that everyone would pay 50 per cent.

Imagine, today, under all the pressure that small business feels, the government is going to raise the business assessment tax and the institutions which are making the most money, and the institutions which can afford to pay, such as banks -- and I would just like to mention that I’m very happy to see that in some parts of Canada we’re going to have unions in banks so that the workers there can, once and for all, get a fair wage -- these institutions, industries, banks and distilleries, their business assessment taxes are going to go down. Surely we’re going to have to realize that someone else is going to pay that, and I really abhor the thought that this extra payment is going to come from a segment of society which is already under severe pressure, a segment of society which is a dying species. If we want to see a prosperous Ontario in the future, we must preserve our small business, and this new business assessment tax is certainly not a measure which is going in that direction.

I would just like to leave the reform on property taxation now and I would like to say a couple of things about the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, especially Wintario. I personally feel that with the $60 million per year we’re collecting now, not all of that money should go toward the projects that it has been going out to. Not all of that money should go to send hockey teams across the country. Net all of that should be directed in the culture and recreation area. Some of that money should be directed into other areas.

I would just like to mention that many of the older people in our society today want to stay in their homes and do not want to go into institutions. I personally would like to see some of this money possibly go to fund nursing for these older people who want to stay in their homes but can’t quite take care of themselves the way they used to. Surely our old people are as important as many of our Wintario projects?

I would like to say that I’ve seen just about every Wintario application, or I’ve known just about every Wintario application that has come from my riding. I know that just about every single one is worthy of some financial help. Also, I feel there are many other sectors of our society that are also worthy of our help, so maybe we can take $10 million or $15 million a year, or possibly even a little more, out of the $60 million or so that we are collecting and put it in other areas which may be of assistance to older people.

I would like to mention, concerning industry and tourism, that Essex county is very unique. We are right across the river from the sixth largest metropolitan area in the United States. We are right across the river from Detroit, Michigan, and all of its suburbs, and I believe that we have one of the greatest opportunities to draw from that area in terms of tourism, and I personally believe that this government here in Ontario has not done enough as far as advertising the county of Essex.

As I mentioned earlier, we have a lot for the people to see. We have historical museums, historical parks. We have Boblo Island. We have Heinz in Leamington. We have many things that the people on the other side of the border would wish to see. I only wish that the Minister of Industry and Tourism would face up to this and would allow us more money to advertise our county and in that way generate much, much more money in tourist dollar expenditures from people who I am sure are very willing to come and visit the county of Essex if only they knew what we had to offer.

I would just like to mention, while I am on this subject, that in the township of Sandwich West, in the riding of my good friend from Essex North (Mr. Ruston), there is a new business opening up. It is in its second year of operation and it is called The Farm. I have been there to visit it and I believe so has the member and so has the Minister of Industry and Tourism. This enterprise is being undertaken by two industrious Canadians whom I believe deserve and need some help from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

Already these men have thousands and thousands of people booked, especially schools which come over in busloads to visit this farm, and one really has to see this place to appreciate it. They have all kinds of mechanical devices which are covered with real calfskin or calf fur and other things like that, which open up and show what the inside of a calf is like so the students can better appreciate where milk really comes from.

They have applied, I am sure, to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism for a grant so they could help promote agriculture, so that they could help promote Essex county. The minister was there to see this operation, and I am sure that he was very impressed, but still we get no help. It seems that Minaki Lodge got all the assistance that they needed, but two industrious Canadians trying to advertise Essex county, trying to create a viable small business, cannot get assistance.

I really think that the minister should go over the regulations for assistance and for loans to small business -- because I find them almost incomprehensible and so do many of my constituents who are trying to apply -- and he should come out with a very specific programme as to who will receive help and who will not and why. Also, his programme should be open to change, so that people like those I just mentioned in Sandwich West who start operations such as The Farm, may also have the opportunity and chance since it is such a unique operation, and if they don’t fit into the criteria the criteria should always be open to change.

I would now like to mention that we suffered probably one of the worst winters in the history of Ontario, and I would like to say that Essex county was hard hit by the snow. Most municipalities had exhausted their budgets well before the end of winter and I was very pleased to be one of the first members to call for snow removal assistance from the ministry. I would just like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the cabinet for their statement on February 1, 1977, that they had made a decision to make extra funds available to these municipalities whose funds had been depleted. All the municipalities in my riding were very grateful for the cabinet action, and we certainly would like to thank them for that.

[12:15]

Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned senior citizens and how many of them would like to stay in their own homes. As we know, today approximately one out of every 12 people is over 65. In the year 2001 one out of every five people will be over 65. Personally, I find the institutionalizing of old people to run against the way I feel people should be cared for.

As you know, in Toronto the Italian community undertook a vigorous programme and built the Villa Columbo. I really wasn’t sure whether it was going to work or not because I know how most Europeans feel about the institutionalizing of their parents. I don’t find it at all surprising that the Villa Colombo is only half full -- I find that a matter of course. I really think that steps must be taken now so that a system can be set up so that the old people can be cared for in their homes. They want to remain independent, and they want to live in the environment that they have for so long and that they find so comfortable. I think we would all be remiss here in the Legislature if we don’t take steps to ensure that these old people have the opportunity to stay in their homes if they wish.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the problem of vandalism that seems to be on the increase in my riding, and I’m sure that my riding is no different in this regard from any other riding in the province. Almost on a regular basis we read where vandals tear off mail boxes and are breaking store windows and are breaking expensive signs, stealing bicycles and so on.

If we don’t put a stop to this, if the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the judges of this province are not going to take strong measures to prevent this from continuing to grow, we are all in for a very great shock in the future. Our young people must be taught to respect goods which are owned by someone else. They should know the value of property, they should be aware that when they cause damage they are hurting someone personally.

I would just like to mention that the Ministry of Correctional Services has a programme in which, when a young person under the legal age is caught causing damage to someone else, such as breaking glass and stealing bicycles and so on, when they are apprehended they are taken to the person whom they have harmed so that they can see first-hand the real damage that they have done to this person.

I sincerely hope that this programme will be expanded. I hope it’s working. I know in one particular situation in my riding where I was not pleased at the way in which it was carried out. But, generally, I hope that the programme is working and I hope it is expanded because our young people, if they are not taught from a young age to respect the goods of other people, I just would once again say that we are sincerely in for a great shock in the future.

Also, I cannot rise in the Legislature without mentioning the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Over the last 18 months a great deal of my time has been taken up helping my constituents with the Workmen’s Compensation Board -- I hesitate to say against the Workmen’s Compensation Board, because I really want to believe that the board wants to help people. However, in its process of wanting to help people, I think it has erred in many, many areas.

I sincerely urge the board to change the way in which the appeal system operates. The workers do not understand it. I know that we have only two workmen’s advisers. That’s not enough. We should at least have 30, or 40, or 50 workmen’s advisers.

Every time one of my constituents who is an injured worker goes before the appeals board, I always make certain that he has a workmen’s adviser with him. I know that if he does not, no matter if he has a lawyer or any of these other people, he stands very little chance of winning his case. I know of just about every one of my constituents who has gone before the board with a workmen’s adviser, I would say 90 per cent have won their cases. I do not think that would be true if he did not have the workmen’s adviser with him. I think it is a very good system to provide the injured worker with an adviser who will go and defend him, a person who is independent from the board. I think that we have to expand that greatly.

While I’m on the subject of the board, I have to say my experience through my constituents has been that the board moves too slowly. On many occasions I have had constituents wait literally months for the board just to gather information. I have had to help these people get on general welfare assistance. I think that’s wrong. If the board realizes at the time that the case is complicated and that it is going to take months, it should have someone go into the area and collect all the facts in two or three days. In that way the injured worker knows where he stands.

I had a particular case where an injured worker’s case was caught up in all this bureaucracy.

It took literally four and a half months before the board received all the information to enable it to make a decision. In the meantime, I helped this man get on general welfare assistance. After four and a half months, his claim was denied by the board. I’m not saying that the board was wrong in denying the man his claim but surely it was wrong in having this man wait four and a half months. I don’t believe for one minute that it takes four and a half months to accumulate all the information concerning an injury.

Recently we have had a very interesting affair concerning the Ontario Federation of Labour. This is an institution I have a great deal of respect for. I know it does a lot of good for the workers of Ontario. But when I read that the president of the OFL takes a trip to Florida while his staff members are on strike and the whole institution is paralysed and no longer during the duration of this strike is able to help the workers of this province who are members of the OFL, I really have to find that disappointing.

I am sure if any executive-type person from any company had done that he would have been labelled a person who does not care for the interests of the working people. I am not saying that the president of the OFL does not deserve a vacation; I am sure he deserves one. I am sure he deserves more time off than he presently gets. But this particular point in time -- when his staff members are on strike and his institution is paralysed and therefore not doing any good for the union members of this province -- is no time to take a vacation. He should be home straightening out the problem so that people like my father, who’s a union member, can get all of their union dues handled in a proper fashion and can get all of the benefits that they deserve from this organization.

I was really sorry to see this, and I would sincerely hope that it doesn’t happen again. I know a couple of the members who work on the staff and I’m not so sure that they’re on strike without any good reason. I’m sure they’re out on strike for a good reason. I think the president should be there to try and straighten out the problems that he’s facing right now.

Basically that concludes what I have to say. I would just like to mention to the members that every year we have the famous Pelee Island pheasant hunt, and I took the liberty of inviting all the members over to this wonderful place during the hunt, where pheasants abound by the thousands, and where the good people of Pelee Island would surely be glad to see some of the members of the assembly other than myself. So if the members do have time this fall, you’re all invited.

Mr. McCague: Earlier in this debate the leader of the third party had some comments to make on the application of the city of Barrie to annex certain parts of surrounding townships. I want to review the events which preceded this application being made and to reiterate the government’s position in this matter.

In the original TCR concept it was envisaged that the major growth in the Simcoe-Georgian area would take place in and around Barrie. At that time no studies had been made of the whole area of Simcoe county.

Mr. Conway: Reading speeches is quite improper.

Mr. McCague: It is quite proper for me, thank you. I didn’t criticize you when you were making yours.

Mr. Conway: Standing order.

Mr. McCague: In the original -- sorry, you’ve gotten me all disturbed now.

Mr. Conway: You’re not going to get the same treatment.

Mr. McCague: In order to do this and to develop a strategy for the development of the area, the government set up a provincial-municipal task force charged with the responsibility of recommending a development strategy to the government. This task force was set up in 1972 and consisted of four elected representatives from the urban communities of Barrie, Orillia, Collingwood, and Midland, and four members representing Simcoe county council and the rural townships.

It was chaired by the then Minister without Portfolio, the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine) and later the member for Brantford.

Mr. Conway: What happened to the member for Brantford?

Mr. McCague: The task force was in existence for over three years and submitted its recommendations to the government in the fall of 1975. These recommendations were based on studies carried out by a team of consultants under the direction of the task force.

Let me be explicit about this -- the local representatives of the people of Simcoe county chose the team of consultants, set out their terms of reference, directed their work and received their report and recommendations. These recommendations were considered by the task force, which recommended to the government a development strategy. This was the document which the government announced it accepted in principle in April of 1976.

During the study period every effort was made to involve each municipality and to ensure that special interest groups and the public were kept informed and had an opportunity to provide input. Some 140 meetings were held, about half with the municipalities. The remaining 70 were either public meetings or meetings with the specific groups.

In addition, the proposed strategy was the subject of two conferences. The result was a strategy that has met with general acceptance throughout the county. Indeed, the county council is on record as supporting the four growth centres strategy. However, no one has ever claimed that everyone in the area agreed with every recommendation. The major dispute was the conflict between the city of Barrie and the township of Innisfil. No resolution of this problem has been achieved. All parties agreed, however, the city ought to be allowed to expand. What was in dispute, and still is, was the acreage.

In this connection the leader of the third party made reference to a letter to the Treasurer from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman). I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to read this letter into the record. It demonstrates that the strategy of the task force is compatible with farm land preservation policies of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, although understandably he would have gone further. It should be noted that the letter does not relate specifically to the Barrie annexation. It recognizes that some land will be converted to urban use and expresses concern about the method of retaining this land in production as long as possible. The text of the letter is as follows:

“Further to your request my staff and I reviewed the above noted report. I would offer the following comments for your consideration. In general the report is to be commended for the attention paid to the concerns of agriculture, particularly the concepts of preserving prime agricultural land for continued agriculture production and separating potentially conflicting urban and rural land uses. Although we have no objections to the overall development concepts chosen by the task force we would like to express the following.

“As part of the implementation programme the task force recommends the reservation for food production of all existing and potential class 1 and 2 agricultural land as well as class 3 lands currently in production, as classified by the Canada land inventory. In addition the report calls for the reservation of all specialized land suitable for fruit, vegetables and tobacco. Although such retention policies are praiseworthy, I have noted that they fall slightly short of the objectives utilized by my staff in the review of the planning document. These objectives specify that class 1, 2, 3, and 4 agricultural land, as well as areas of special and unique crops or soil, should be retained for food production.

“Although I recognize that it is the final responsibility of the task force to delineate those lands to be reserved for agricultural use I am unable to find any underlying rationale within the report for not reserving more arable lands than presently suggested. For example, the report indicates that class 1 and 2 agricultural land comprise one-third of the Simcoe-Georgian area. If all existing potential class 3 lands were included for preservation the total reserve land area still contains only 53 per cent of the study area. This would seem to leave ample areas in which other growth could occur.

“I have noted that the report designates generous urban land areas to meet the future needs of the projected populations embodied in the development concept. Yet, because of the long time-frame involved in the strategy, many of these designated urban lands will not be required for 25 or 30 years. In the interim, it is desirable that these areas remain in agricultural use and further that detailed staging for the development of these areas be required to enable farmers to make a logical and orderly retreat. In this regard five years advance notice might be appropriate as a minimum. I trust that this important concern will be adequately provided for when the time comes for implementing the development strategy at the local level.

“The report also makes reference to the use of land banking policies modelled after the Saskatchewan and British Columbia schemes as possible implementation measures. Although not without merit, as you are no doubt aware land banking presently does not constitute part of the government strategy for Ontario farmland as outlined in the recent statement entitled A Strategy for Ontario Farmland.

“An important goal of the report suggests the removal of pressure from agricultural and rural areas by providing adequate lands for urban development around existing centres. Although it is implicit in the report it is my concern that before such lands, which may include valuable farmland, are needed for urban expansion, ideally all land within existing urban boundaries will have been efficiently used through infilling and other similar local planning policies.

“Finally I commend the task force for its recommendation that bona fide farmers be permitted to build additional residences on their land to accommodate farm labour without the need of a land severance. This completes our comments in this regard to the report.

“[Signed] William G. Newman,

“May 11, 1976.”

At a series of meetings with the representatives of the municipalities involved, the Treasurer encouraged them to seek agreement in order that they might avoid divisive and expensive hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board. Unfortunately, this was not possible and the city of Barrie proceeded with its application for annexation.

I think hon. members are aware of the subsequent events. However, since there appears to be a certain lack of clarity in some quarters about the government’s position, let me read into the record a letter which the Treasurer addressed to the chairman of the OMB approximately one month before the hearings began:

I am given to understand that there is still some confusion about the government’s position in relation to the application of the city of Barrie to annex parts of the adjacent municipalities. In the interest of clarification, I thought I should expand on my comments in my previous letter.

“The report of the Simcoe-Georgian task force, which recommended that the population of Barrie should grow to 125,000, was accepted by the government on April 8, 1976. It is desirable that future urban development in the province be concentrated in urban areas in order to preserve as much valuable agricultural land and in order to secure the most efficient and economical delivery system as possible for municipal services.

“I confirm my previous statement that it is necessary for Barrie to expand its boundaries in order to accommodate the population envisaged. I have also stated and reaffirm that the amount of land to be annexed is a matter for the board to determine.

“To ensure that adequate facilities will be available to service the expected influx of population, the government will make funds available over and above normal levels from its regional priority budget as and when necessary. This will require in the future a series of agreements with local government.

“It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate such agreements with at least five different jurisdictions, the city, the county and three townships. If the board determines that compensation ought to be paid in accordance with section 14 of The Municipal Act, the government is prepared to look favourably on the provision of a portion of the funds for this purpose.

“I hope that this letter will serve to clarify same of the concerns that appear to have arisen and be of some assistance to you in your deliberations.

“[Signed] W. Darcy McKeough,

“September 30, 1976.”

This remains the position of the government. It was with some regret that, despite having sent copies of the first letter to the municipalities concerned and the wide publicity the letter received, the Treasurer found it necessary to send a second letter in similar terms six weeks later. The second letter was in the following terms:

“Dear Mr. Chairman:

“I refer to my previous letter regarding the matter of the city of Barrie application to annex part of the neighbouring townships. At that time I indicated that the report of the Simcoe-Georgian task force had been accepted in principle by the government.

“I understand from my staff who are attending the hearing that the board is uncertain about the degree to which the government has accepted the report as government policy in view of the statement that it has been accepted in principle.

“I confirm that in particular the population allocations contained in the report have been approved by the government. In the case of the Barrie urban area, this is 125,000. The government noted the recommendation that a joint planning group should be set up to study the Barrie urban area. Inevitably, some years would lapse before such a group could be in a position to make recommendations. These would then require agreement and approval before further action could be taken.

“In the meantime, a number of decisions relating to the servicing of the area must be taken. These may be related to municipal services such as water and sewers, or provincial functions such as highways. These cannot, nor should they, wait until a detailed land-use plan has been developed.

“If the objectives of the government are to be achieved it is essential that the province can deal with the jurisdiction that will ultimately be responsible for housing those 125,000 people.

“Where expenditures are incurred by a municipality in support of developmental objectives of the government, it is the practice of the government to make financial assistance available in order that no undue burden falls on existing residents.

“Funds for these purposes are made available through the regional priority budget and are over and above all existing grant programmes. Examples of projects which have received provincial funds are: Pollution abatement projects in Thunder Bay and Ignace, and the development of an industrial park in the Parry Sound area. The regional priority budget is also used to fund provincial programmes such as the upgrading of Highway 599 from Savant Lake to Pickle Lake in advance of normal requirements.

“The government is prepared to make funds available for similar projects in the Barrie area, but I am unable at this time to indicate the magnitude of this support for projects in the Barrle area. This would have to be determined on receipt of specific proposals, but it is essential that the maximum benefit be obtained from the expenditures of public funds. Any project to be considered for assistance would be required to satisfy the requirements of the projected population.

“It is, therefore, essential that the government be able to deal with the jurisdiction that will be responsible for making decisions relating to capital expenditures on infrastructure to cater to 125,000 people.

“This jurisdiction must also have the responsibility of proposing taxes to meet the local share of costs. I understand that my previous letters have not been placed on the records and that the board would prefer that a witness be available to present such letters and to testify. In this regard I have instructed Mr. Eric Flemming to deliver this letter.

“[Signed] W. Darcy McKeough,

“December 15, 1976.”

At no time has the government indicated how much land Barrie should have. Certainly, it should be sufficient to accommodate a population of 125,000. Ideally, the local people should sort it out themselves. Should they be able to do so, the Treasurer would be pleased to do anything possible to avoid further expense to these municipalities. If this cannot be done, the OMB can take into account all the relevant considerations, including those relating to agricultural land. it is unfortunate that the annexation issue has overshadowed the recommendations in the report of the Simcoe-Georgian task force. The government is anxious to get on with the implementation of the other parts of the report, particularly those relating to growth in the four urban centres of Barrie, Orillia, Midland and Collingwood -- so are the municipalities. Indeed the Treasury has received specific requests for assistance in the provision of infra-structure from the cities of Barrie and Orillia and the town of Midland.

The city of Barrie proposal is most advanced. At this time, the city is ready to spend approximately $250,000 to serve an industrial park of 65 acres. We expect, shortly, to be in a position to announce government assistance to this project. In this way, the government and the municipalities are moving very positively to support the work that was done by the task force, and to implement their recommendations.

It gives me pleasure to clarify this position on behalf of the government.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure to have this opportunity of joining in this Throne Speech debate. To begin with I’d like to commend you for your very important work as Speaker of this House, and on the way that you conduct the business here. Sometimes it’s rather difficult to keep everyone in order and sometimes the business is rather controversial, but I’d like to commend you for the way you’ve conducted the affairs of this House.

The major concern of most people today is the whole question of unemployment. People in my area are certainly being hit as hard as in many other areas of the province and the country. In mid-March there were almost 5,000 people -- as my leader pointed out when he gave his speech -- registered as unemployed at Canada Manpower in the northeast office out of the Timmins area. It has been a particular concern of mine and of the people in the area. So many people who want to work do not have jobs available. There have been a number of things over the years that have exacerbated this particular situation and made it very difficult in our area. A number of jobs were lost when the federal government closed the radar base at Ramore and put the communities of Holtyre, Ramore and Matheson in some jeopardy when a number of air force personnel moved out.

[12:45]

Then we were hit, I suppose, by the slump in the lumber industry, and pulp and paper setbacks didn’t help too much. Jobs were lost there. Then a year ago last December the government, in a very infamous act as far as I’m concerned, decided to close down the northeastern regional mental health centre. We have lost over 100 jobs in that facility. Even though it is being partially used as the resource centre for the mentally retarded, there have still been over 100 jobs lost there. It seems to me that maybe one of the things the government should be considering when they’re setting up their regional offices for this Northern Affairs department, since they did exacerbate the situation very much in regard to employment when they closed down northeastern, is that the Northern Affairs office should be in Timmins.

Another thing that really has hurt us was the sagging price in gold. We lost about 735 jobs there. Granted that the price has come up to the range of $150 and a little per ounce of gold and that stabilizing the price means the mines are able to operate at a slight profit and perhaps might be engaging in some more development of their operations. Nonetheless it’s a time of uncertainty. The gold mines had tried to get the federal and provincial governments to come up with a policy as far as gold mining is concerned so that they might be able to plan ahead with some certainty that the governments wanted that industry to carry on.

As I pointed out in my budget speech last December, there is quite an opportunity for expansion of this industry if it can be sustained over the valleys in the economic curve. As yet to my knowledge, neither the federal nor the provincial governments have come up with a policy that would make sure these mines continue in operation and provide employment and economic stability to the gold mining communities that exist in this province.

I think it would be most valuable and essential for the government to make a commitment that we really do want those gold mines to continue. I know the Minister of Natural Resources at the time made a very favourable speech to the mine ministers’ conference down in Newfoundland, and we thought he was really pushing it. But when he was pressed in this House, he kind of hedged and the Treasurer did as well. They just wouldn’t make that kind of a commitment.

As I say, if the north is going to develop and continue to grow with the resources we have there in gold in the Timmins area, Kirkland Lake area and Red Lake area, we should make sure to let them know we want the industry there, we want them to expand and we will support them.

Another thing that caused unemployment is the shutdown of Timmins Auto Springs Limited putting between 100 and 125 people out of work. It was a manufacturer of trailers for transporting lumber, pulp and forest products. It had expanded quite rapidly and was most important to the economy of the area. I think the pulp and paper strike and the slack in the lumber industry had afflicted them in such a way that they were not able to keep going. I hope the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, along with others, will get involved. While that same industry may not be able to revive, some others might be encouraged to use the facilities and we will have that secondary industry in our area. It was the only major secondary industry that we did have, and we were most concerned that it continue.

The whole leaving of the development of the north to the private sector and to free enterprise has not brought prosperity to many of the communities in my riding, nor to the north as a whole. I think that we have to have more government planning and involvement in our economy. After all, if we’re prepared to spend $100 million to develop Syncrude in Alberta then we should be prepared to put some significant capital into the development of northern Ontario.

My leader has stated that one-half of the mines profit tax should be earmarked specifically for northern development and this money could be used by local bodies to provide secondary industry throughout the north and, over a significant time, public and private involvement in such a way where there was equity taken by the province in areas where there was some jeopardy in business and public capital could help stabilize it, or keep an operation going, that this money could be used for that. That’s something that could be done in the Matachewan area right now, and regarding the Minister of Northern Affairs and his speech last night as to what he was going to do for the north, there’s an area right now where he could do something.

Mr. Martel: Do you know where the offices are going?

Mr. Ferrier: No.

Mr. Martel: Kenora and Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Ferries: Kenora and Sault Ste. Marie?

Mr. Martel: I didn’t realize Rhodes and Bernier were in such troubles.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s crass political manoeuvring and I’m afraid that’s what the ministry is, but we’ll have to deal with that one when the bill comes in.

With the unemployment in the north and the difficulties that are there, one would hope this kind of economic planning and economic commitment would at least provide development and stability to the industry that we have. We’re not seeing it under Conservative government. We don’t hear them singing in the north now “Keep on going the way you’ve been going” as they did in 1971, because we’ve had 34 years of Conservative government to do the kind of things that should have been done, and the reason we have a crisis is that political philosophy and economic philosophy that we have had.

I suggest we need to have a provincial agency such as SOQUEM in Quebec, where there is public involvement in the exploration and development of the mining sector. I notice Levesque has designated certain areas of Quebec as areas where SOQUEM alone has the right to do the exploration and development and the mining companies are squealing. It’s nice to hear them squeal. They don’t get their own way in every province. Sometimes the public interest is taken into account and protected by a government, rather than a complete sellout to the private sector. We think that if we had this kind of operation in Ontario we could have the extra work being done. If the private sector is pulling up and trying its blackmailing tactics we could provide the extra exploration and we would have the ore bodies located and the economic benefits coming to the people.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Don’t bite the hand, Bill.

Mr. Ferrier: By the way, since the minister interjects, we hope that in areas like mine, where there has been mercury found in a number of the fish in the lakes, he is going to see that the fish are caught this summer and the tests are carried out this summer and not left, and that if there are ways of coping with that situation he is going to do it, because there is a lot of concern in my area about that. It was pretty shocking when we found there was in fact mercury in the fish in that area where there were no industries for miles around. So I hope the rather ambiguous statement that was made that maybe it wouldn’t be done this year -- well I hope it will be done this year. It is a must as far as I am concerned.

There are two or three other things I want to deal with in the time remaining. I want to say that I thoroughly support the efforts of my party, of most members, to get that Workmen’s Compensation Board revised and working properly. The delays in the adjudicating of claims, the dissatisfactions that are felt by workers, particularly as far as chest conditions are concerned; they wait six months before the decision is reached and unless you have a clearcut case of silicosis -- there is bronchitis and emphysema but not clearly a lot of silicosis -- they are turned down.

That board needs a complete revamping. Members have hammered at that board in the nine and a half years that I have been in this House. It’s a complete political embarrassment for the government and it loses one a lot of support year after year. People will not trust anything the board does, it seems. I think it’s incumbent on the government to clean that thing up and to make it work properly. I think the plan outlined by my party, that it be a comprehensive insurance scheme whether you are injured on the job or off, would over the years do a lot more justice to people in this province and meet their needs and do away with a lot of anguish and mental suffering that results from things now.

The Timmins board of education has authority from the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) to proceed to build a new secondary school. In conjunction with this, they wish to build an auditorium in this school for their own use and also for community use. The Ministry of Education will not provide capital funds for auditoriums in high schools, I am told, so what the board of education has done is make application to Wintario for a grant. It has received approval for a grant but it has to raise about $200,000 itself. They have requested that the minister waive the usual provision of having to raise it locally so that they could put it on the tax base.

The minister hasn’t made a decision yet but it seems to me it is quite a thing for school boards to be running around selling tickets on cars and conducting lotteries and having bazaars and all this kind of thing when there is more important work that they should be doing. When it’s a major project and when it’s an essential thing that will help the school and help the community, I think it’s more than just that it should be on the tax base. While we met with the deputy minister and put the case to him, he was kind of noncommittal. I would like to hope the minister himself would give consideration to the Timmins board of education’s request.

We still are worried about chronic care and that the home for the aged be able to expand and change itself drastically. We met with the ministers and hope for some response there.

There is one problem I will mention and then conclude my remarks. Highway 144 is still too narrow. There are a lot of accidents there. It’s a treacherous road to drive. It’s a secondary road, by government thinking, linking two major communities -- Timmins and Sudbury. Only a community in the north would get that kind of treatment when a road was built. My friend from Sudbury East hammered away at it when it was first being constructed, called it the “Santa Fe Trail” and wanted it built up to standard. That road has got to be built to a first-class road and it has got to be widened to the standard 24 feet. The government hedged on that and wouldn’t make that commitment. I say that’s a must. The people insist on it and the government has got to start that kind of reconstruction programme.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence and I would conclude my remarks.

On motion by Mr. B. Newman, the debate was adjourned.

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, before moving adjournment I would ask consent of the House to table the answer to question 21 standing on the notice paper.

On motion by Hon. Mr. MacBeth, the House adjourned at 1 p.m.