role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 5, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L016 - Thu 5 Apr 1979 / Jeu 5 avr 1979

ESTIMATES

CHARGES AGAINST LLBO EMPLOYEES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHARGES AGAINST LLBO EMPLOYEES

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

CONVENTION FACILITIES

PROPERTY TAXATION

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

WESTINGHOUSE CANADA

DREE PROGRAM

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY

FAMILY BENEFITS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

HEALTH SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUPPLY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: Pauline M. McGibbon, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1980, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, April 5, 1979.

CHARGES AGAINST LLBO EMPLOYEES

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It has come to my attention that the Ontario Provincial Police news bureau has had on its desk for some considerable time now a list of persons charged, persons in the employ of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. They have told the news media that they cannot give out those names, even though the charges have already occurred, until the minister has made a statement in the House at 2 p.m. today.

Since it would appear to me that this takes the form of news management, it seems to me there is incumbent upon either the minister who gave those orders or the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) or whoever it is in the OPP who believes they are acting under such orders, to make clear to the public of Ontario, and to the members here, that the mere fact that we meet at 2 p.m. is no reason for any form of news stage-managing to go on, and that it is a misuse of the fact that we meet here at 2 p.m.

The public surely has a right to know who is being charged in these instances and should not have to wait for the right psychological moment as determined by any minister of the crown.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, before I read the statement in reply to that, the Leader of the Opposition is cockeyed. I gave no such instructions to the OPP; I gave none.

Furthermore, the Leader of the Opposition as usual is manifestly misinformed.

I was apprised of sworn informations that were taken, apparently yesterday, by various crown attorneys across this province. The informations were sworn and warrants were issued, apparently sometime last night. I was apprised of those documents in my office at approximately 9:30 this morning by the Deputy Solicitor General. At that point, I said since they were provincial employees I would be issuing a statement in the Legislature at 2 p.m. That is all I said.

For the sake of the record -- and once again the Leader of the Opposition is manifestly misinformed -- four of the accused, it is my understanding, appeared in Ottawa court this morning for arraignment. That information is obviously public. The only request that was made to me by the provincial police was that in view of the fact that at that time, early this morning, two of the accused had not been taken into custody, they did not wish me to say anything prior to 2 o’clock so that the accused could be taken into custody, prior to any formal announcement being made in the Legislature. I hope that sets the record straight.

Mr. S. Smith: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister undertake to inform himself that the Ontario Provincial Police news bureau at Downsview had on its desk all the names, had these names requested of them by the press and were told that they could not release them until a minister, namely the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, had made a statement at 2 p.m.? That may not have been the instructions of the minister --

Mr. Hennessy: Apologize.

Mr. S. Smith: Go back and check, and the member will find out I said, “Did he make the -- ”

Hon. Mr. Drea: Then apologize to me for your earlier remarks.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Apologize.

Mr. S. Smith: I didn’t say that. The minister wasn’t listening. Why doesn’t he read what I said? I said: “Did the minister or did the Solicitor General -- ”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition made what he thought was a legitimate point of privilege.

Mr. Riddell: Why doesn’t the minister grow up? It gets a little sickening.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has given his word as to the series of events as he knows them. I think that the Leader of the Opposition should accept his word.

Mr. Wildman: Let the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk take over.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHARGES AGAINST LLBO EMPLOYEES

Hon. Mr. Drea: In January 1978 the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario requested the Ontario Provincial Police to launch an investigation into allegations of irregularities involving liquor licence board personnel.

As a result of that investigation, the following people have been charged: Robert George Lamb of Toronto, director of the inspections branch, has been charged with three counts of breach of trust under

section 111 of the Criminal Code of Canada. John Edward Lawrence of Toronto, manager of regional inspectors, has been charged jointly with Mr. Lamb with one count of breach of trust under the Criminal Code.

Thomas Roy Dempsey of Ottawa, district liquor licence inspector, has been charged with 51 counts of uttering a forged document, 16 counts of accepting benefits and one count of breach of trust under the code. Harvey Blake Slade of Ottawa, district liquor licence inspector, has been charged with six counts of uttering a forged document under

section 326 of the Criminal Code and 32 counts of accepting benefits. Ronald David Knudson of Ottawa, district liquor licence inspector, has been charged with 23 counts of uttering a forged document under

section 326 of the Criminal Code and with four counts of accepting benefits under

section 110 of the code.

Robert Edward Zimmerman of Ottawa, district liquor licence inspector, has been charged with eight counts of uttering a forged document and with 16 counts of accepting benefits under the Criminal Code.

As a result of these charges, the employees will be suspended without pay pending disposition by the court.

Mr. Sargent: All outstanding Tories.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Board policy is that even the slightest hint of impropriety or innuendo of wrong-doing be investigated.

Mr. Sargent: All Conservatives.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Since the matter is before the courts, there will be no further comment by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario or by the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The Treasurer.

Mr. S. Smith: Why couldn’t they give out that news?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have no idea. Why doesn’t the Leader of the Opposition talk to them?

Mr. Nixon: Somebody told them not to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Treasurer has the floor.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The Leader of the Opposition should check his facts.

Mr. S. Smith: They were dead on.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Treasurer have a statement or doesn’t he?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was commiserating with the Leader of the Opposition.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the renewal of the Ontario Youth Employment Program for 1979. This program, aimed at encouraging Ontario businesses and farms to provide summer job opportunities for young people from 15 to 24 years of age, has operated successfully now for two seasons. In 1979, OYEP will run from April 30 to October 21, and the amount of the grant is again to be $1.25 per hour.

The Ontario Youth Employment Program is designed to benefit both employers and the province’s youth by providing youth with valuable work experience, skills, contacts and references which will better equip them for full-time participation in the labour force; by encouraging additional productive activity by reducing the cost of summer labour to Ontario’s farm and business enterprises; and by assisting the farm and business sectors in recruiting youth for future employment.

In 1979, employers may apply for a grant for up to 150 weeks of employment at each business location, regardless of the number of positions created. This will provide greater flexibility for the employer and allow him to maximize the benefits of the program, since in previous years he has been restricted to six positions at each business location, even if the positions lasted only six or seven weeks.

For example, the practical effect of the new rule is that if employers can create new work for as little as six weeks, which is the minimum, they may apply for up to 25 employees for this period.

In 1979, I expect OYEP to provide about 40,000 jobs at a cost of $26 million. This compares with 34,000 jobs in 1978 at a cost of $20,000,000.

Mr. Eakins: Oh, yes?

Hon. F. S. Miller: “Oh, yep” is what my friend will be saying Tuesday night.

Mr. Eakins: I said, “Oh, yes?”

Hon. F. S. Miller: My colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) will administer OYEP again in 1979.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). Is he going to be back? Does the Premier know?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think so. I just left him at a luncheon.

Mr. S. Smith: If it is agreeable to the third party, I can withhold my questions until he comes back. Is that agreeable?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. S. Smith: I will wait, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the continuing absence in China of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

Can the provincial secretary confirm statements by Ministry of Education officials that Ontario intends to provide an additional $40,000,000 to school boards to meet its new commitment to special education for all children who need it over the next three years? Can she explain how the government could have arrived at such a small amount when there are an estimated 30,000 children on waiting lists for special education in the province and many more whose needs have never yet been identified; and will she assure the House that none of the proposed $40,000,000 for special-education funding will be found by cutbacks in other Ontario grants to school boards?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that this government is committed to meeting the educational needs of those children with special learning difficulties. We have made a commitment, and the amount that has been established is, in effect, the amount of money that could be put into that program immediately. We do not have the teachers who are trained; we do not have all the facilities that are required.

[2:15]

Mrs. Campbell: Why don’t you import them?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As quickly as they can be brought into place, the problems will be addressed and children requiring that kind of special education will be looked after.

Mr. Cassidy: You have been asleep at the switch.

Mr. Warner: Hollow words.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister say whether the amount of $40,000,000 is all the province is providing? Will the minister assure the House there will be no other cutbacks in other education grants to municipalities? Can the minister explain how the needs for special education which still exist in the province will be met, when this proposed grant is going to total $443 per year for each child on the waiting list, while the city of Toronto estimates it costs $4,824 for special education for each child?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The honourable member knows I don’t have all those figures at my fingertips. I have indicated to him that the government has made a commitment that every child in this province who needs special education will indeed receive it.

We have two new schools which will be opening up to provide such special education for these children. We have made money available to all boards of education for special education programs. That is the commitment the government has made.

Mr. Martel: Eighteen students.

Ms. Gigantes: Subtracting it from other grants.

Mr. Martel: That’s no commitment at all.

Mr. Sweeney: is the minister prepared to make a commitment in principle that for the newly mandated special education requirement a board will be able to get from the government the additional costs resulting or flowing from the new legislation mandate?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I am not prepared to make the commitment. The Minister of Education will be back in the House within a week and that question can be put to her at that time.

Mr. Cassidy: I thought you were the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As I have indicated, the government has made a commitment. It is government policy that education for children with special needs will be provided by boards of education as quickly as it can be put into place.

Mr. Martel: What year? What millenium are you talking about? How many years down the road?

Mr. Grande: Since the minister mentioned one of the two schools that were to be started, I suppose the minister is referring to Trillium in Milton? Regarding this school, can the minister tell us what criteria are used to determine which children qualify, because no psychologist I know of is aware exactly how to refer children to that school yet?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: A special board will determine the eligibility of children to be admitted to that school.

Mr. Warner: Those were supposed to be ready for January.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question to the Premier arising out of the moving, or the transfer, of 32 psycho-geriatric patients from Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital to the Queen Street mental institution yesterday.

Here is the Minister of Health; I will ask the Minister of Health.

Mr. Warner: Saved again.

Mr. Cassidy: My question arises from the decision to transfer 32 psycho-geriatric patients from Lakeshore to Queen Street yesterday.

In view of the enormous anxiety that move caused among patients and staff, and the mounting concern expressed by the neighbouring community, by health-care workers and by all the people who are patients or potential users of the Lakeshore facility -- and in view of the fact that the whole rationale for closing Lakeshore will be examined fully by the standing committee on social development over the course of the next few weeks -- will the minister stop trying to make the closure of Lakeshore a fait accompli before the review by the standing committee has been concluded?

Will he assure the House that there will be no further transfers of patients to other institutions from Lakeshore until that committee has reported?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I may say I think it was 29 patients and not 30. The patients were moved yesterday in what turned out to be an orderly fashion, in spite of the circumstances that were created at the Lakeshore hospital.

Mr. Warner: It’s nice to have orderly destruction.

Hon Mr. Timbrell: I’m advised there was a get-together last night in their new facilities --

Mr. Warner: You should have been in charge of the Titanic.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- in the 1956 building on Queen Street and this morning the patients are all well in spite of the additional pressures created around their move.

The honourable member will recall that when I made the announcement in January about the decision to close the Lakeshore hospital, I indicated the patients would be moved in groups, a few at a time, so that it would be an orderly move and would not be disruptive to the patients. It is our intention to carry on in that regard.

I welcome the opportunity, whenever the standing committee gets to the matter, and I don’t know when that’s going to be, to set the record straight. I have a few other initiatives under way to set the record straight. There’s a great deal of misinformation abroad about the numbers and various other things. I intend to set that record straight and to continue with the orderly movement of the patients.

In the final analysis, sir, my recommendation to the cabinet was based on, and will continue to be based on, the interests of the patients in that particular facility and the alternatives available for their care.

Mr. Warner: Even though the Premier’s meeting? He’s challenging it.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain what kind of planning is going on for these transfers, when the patients who were transferred from Lakeshore were not put into the same ward at the Queen Street mental institution and when they will no longer be looked after by the same staff who were looking after them at Lakeshore? They now have different staff in certain cases.

Can the minister say what the effect is going to be on the health of the patients at the Lakeshore hospital if they are going to be arbitrarily transferred at short notice to different hospitals so the minister can empty Lakeshore before the people who’ve been questioning his decision have had their chance to put their views and their problems before the committee of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I suggest some of the activities the member is describing are, in fact, more disruptive to the patients than the actual move.

I am told they are, in fact, in the same ward; I think it’s in the 1956 building. In most cases we are transferring staff with the various units. I will check to see if there are any variations in that, for whatever reason. Some staff, who had been with that unit at Lakeshore may very well have accepted positions elsewhere in the psychiatric hospital system. Some have already done that. They may also have accepted positions in other areas of the provincial government, or with the public hospitals or elsewhere. There are a number of people who have already taken positions elsewhere, but I’ll check on that particular thing. I am advised, though, that they are in fact in the same ward.

Mr. Lawlor: It must be awfully close.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary to the minister’s answer: In view of the fact that one of the reasons given for this closing was the concern about a patient who had burned to death and the so-called fire hazards of Lakeshore, would the minister table in this House the report of the fire marshal and of the fire department with reference to Lakeshore so we may have that material before us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that question is already on the Order Paper and was among the very large number tabled at the beginning of the session, answers to which are being prepared right now. As you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that is taking a --

Mrs. Campbell: We’d like to have them before everybody is out of Lakeshore.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- great deal of time and costing a great deal of money, but answers will be given.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Lawlor: I would like to ask where is the Minister of Health’s famous consultation and supply of information? Might we expect some information with respect to his next nefarious move? When is he going to reply to questions asked in this House on previous occasions with respect to the special observation unit he didn’t know very much about on that occasion; or with respect to the alcoholic services and his disposition thereof; and with respect to the dialysis disposition that seems to be as vacuous as the policy?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I thought we had answered all outstanding questions on that.

Mr. Lawlor: No.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If not I’ll check the record. As you know, there is and has been since the announcement, a committee established to effect an orderly transition, an orderly move of the patients and staff.

Mr. Grande: But no answers.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That group is made up of staff of Lakeshore and Queen Street, who by the way had done the assessments of the patients, I am told, before they were moved. This is contrary to another bit of misinformation that was bandied about. They will continue their work until the moves are all made.

CONVENTION FACILITIES

Mr. S. Smith: I think the Minister of Industry and Tourism is here. I will start my question while he is taking his seat, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain why it is that in the presence of the Metro chairman --

Mr. Warner: And his buddy.

Mr. S. Smith: -- he told the federal Minister of National Defence that he would have no intention of proceeding with the matter of the convention centre for Metropolitan Toronto because he did not wish to give the federal government the benefit of this election plum at this time? Does the minister not recognize that his duty is to allow the people to decide for themselves what are election plums or goodies and his job is to, first of all get the centre and get the promise, and then to make darn sure the promise is carried out? Why did he decide to play politics instead?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I presume the Leader of the Opposition has spoken with Mr. Danson, who has confirmed the allegations he has repeated just now. I will give the member my clear recollection of the circumstances.

First, so far as the Metro chairman’s recollection of the conversations is concerned, what he hasn’t made clear is the fact that he was present for only one of the two conversations I had with Mr. Danson over a two-day period.

Mr. S. Smith: He almost fell off his seat.

Mr. Nixon: Joe Clark doesn’t need Bill Davis anyway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Second, I originally placed the call to Mr. Danson to canvass --

Mr. Van Horne: He said, “Who needs him?”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the question with him in an attempt to keep this very major and important project from becoming a political issue.

Mr. Mackenzie: Self righteous.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you becoming Canadian Liberals all of a sudden?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I invited Mr. Danson --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would I want to politicize him? I in fact made one mistake, and that is I said to Barney -- I said to Mr. Danson --

Mr. Peterson: Barnyard to you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Probably to you too, David.

I said to Mr. Danson: “If you wish to proceed with this now I want to tell you how we feel about it. I am going to make that quite clear.” I said: “Mr. Danson, we feel that land is not a sufficient contribution to the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto. The federal government, if it is finally becoming serious about doing something for the people of Metropolitan Toronto, has to do more than put in land. In addition to land it ought to make a financial contribution so the land component plus the financial contribution equals the amount of money Metro and the taxpayers of Ontario put in.” I said Barney -- sorry, Mr. Danson, it shows members how well we get along ordinarily.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What did he call you?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I said: “Mr. Danson, quite honestly, the land isn’t going to be good enough by itself.” I said: “Now, if you want to give the land --

Mr. S. Smith: No reference to the campaign?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell the member what the reference to the campaign was, I am going to tell him exactly what the reference to the campaign was.

An hon. member: Give him Toronto Island, Larry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He said you guys goofed on Harbourfront, why would you want to do it again?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell the member exactly what the reference to the campaign was, it was this: I said to him quite clearly: “If you give us only the land then our response will be that the land isn’t good enough.” That is the old federal Liberal game of saying: “We will give you one dollar, now you guys go spend five.”

I said: “Therefore, if you want to give us the land now without the money, then you have to make that decision in the context of your campaign. However, in order to keep this from being involved in the campaign, if you want to withhold any further discussion until after the election, I am happy to do that.”

[2:30]

That was what he called back the next day and said to me. He said, “I have spoken to my colleagues” --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They don’t want to hear the answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Danson said he had spoken to his colleagues and could not even get them to go along with the land at that time; so it would have to wait until after the election. And, considering how the election is going, I am confident it will work out a lot better then.

Mr. S. Smith: What a pity, Mr. Speaker, that there was a witness. What a pity.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: One would assume that the members on one side of the House don’t want to hear the question and those on the other side don’t want to hear the answer.

Mr. S. Smith: You are right on, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear both.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What a pity there was a witness.

By way of supplementary: Would the minister not accept that it is not his job to keep the issue out of the federal campaign? The people can judge the worth or lack of worth of federal election promises. The minister’s job is to get the federal government commitment and then to hold them to it. In that regard, will the minister tell us why he is withholding for his own personal study the report of Gladstone Consultants in Washington; and why is he refusing to share that report with the other levels of government at this time? Granted, he may wish to study it, but what is the reason that the other levels with whom he is supposed to co-operate are not being permitted to see that report?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I say in response to the first part of the question -- why do we not get the federal commitment and work from there? -- the answer is, that is precisely what I asked Mr. Danson for; and I asked him again today. If they are sincere in their desire, let them just call up and say the land is available. That is the one thing that Mr. Danson has not done, to say, “Yes, the land is available.” I trust the Leader of the Opposition will get on the phone over the weekend and arrange for that to occur on Monday.

The answer to the second part of the question is quite simply that we have got the study and, quite honestly, rather than have a study distributed and start public jockeying for position, as has now developed because of Mr. Danson’s intervention --

Mr. Peterson: This is ridiculous, just ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just wait a minute --

Mr. Nixon: The CBC has got it, anyway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Rather than have one level say in public, “We are going to throw in so much; now go and squeeze the other side,” I thought the best way to do it would be to meet quietly and talk with the other two levels of government.

Mr. Danson asked that that conversation be suspended until after the election. In response to his request that we not pursue the discussion until a later time. I agreed at his request to take more time to look at it from our standpoint. In response to that, I have not had an opportunity to complete our analysis of it and to take it to my colleagues to see what extent we are going to be able to contribute. We are long on record as being in favour of trying to find a way to build a convention centre for this city.

Mr. Peterson: It is despicable, the way you have handled it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Barney’s way was terrific.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the Minister of Industry and Tourism is talking to the federal government and, despite what he said to him and what he was told, since 60 per cent of the workers in the construction industry in Toronto are unemployed and Toronto had to refuse 90 conventions which would have brought $100,000,000 worth of business to the city of Toronto, can the minister tell us what is his commitment towards building the convention centre and what is the time table, since it looks as if he had been ready to go ahead since February if the federal election had not been called?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I say it is refreshing to hear the member support the use of government funds to attract new jobs here and to create some investment. I am sure his colleagues who are aldermen in the south end of my riding will fully support this project when it is brought up.

May I say that one of the reasons we have been studying the report is to determine the extent to which the taxpayers of Ontario should participate in that centre. I am a little more careful with the allocation of those funds. I have colleagues who have requested the Treasurer for funds and so on. We are trying to resolve our capability to fund that centre.

That is why I would have hoped the three levels of government could have met quietly and determined the extent to which we are all able to contribute. I can assure the member that this government, having paid entirely for that study, having long been on record as supporting convention centres in several municipalities -- not NHL rinks for Hamilton -- is very committed to that type of project. Members will see our contribution very shortly.

Mr. Wildman: Maybe you can get Ford to do it.

Mr. S. Smith: What is wrong with Hamilton being in the NHL?

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Since we have a tourism deficit of $660,000,000 in Ontario, and since tourism is receiving a very low profile and not the priority it deserves, does the minister not see it as his responsibility to bring together the various bodies to discuss this centre? Also, is it not true that the people in the industry have themselves offered to make a substantial contribution to this centre?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have spent a great deal of time with the Metro convention people. I have spent a great deal of time with Paul Godfrey, who happened to be in my office when a certain call came in.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Did he get a copy of that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A transcript of the call or the study?

I must repeat this: Mr. Danson says he is not sure who placed the original call; I am sure, I called him. It was the day before the federal Liberal cabinet came to Toronto to have its meeting. I must repeat: we paid for the study and co-ordinated the whole endeavour. But for Mr. Danson’s request to stand this thing down until after the election, then it would have been going forward.

Mr. S. Smith: The people paid for it, my friend. You didn’t pay for it, the people paid for it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I cannot co-ordinate it when a major player in the game has said he doesn’t want to talk until the election is over. I repeat my offer: We are happy to contribute and happy to co-ordinate if Mr. Danson will contribute the land as a minimum and some money on top of it. We are ready to talk tomorrow. If the member can get him off the campaign trail we will talk to him tomorrow.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. S. Smith: A second question to the same minister on a different topic: Given his throne speech commitment to help small business, can he tell us whether he intends to speak to his colleagues in cabinet to try to prevent some of the small businesses of Ontario from property tax increases which are threatening to bankrupt them? In particular, does he not agree that he has a duty to urge upon his cabinet colleagues some further consideration to mitigate the impact of property tax reassessment as it affects small businesses? Shouldn’t there be a mitigating factor taking into account the size of the business?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, I recall looking at some of the earlier studies. One of the concerns that was expressed the last time this issue got a lot of profile in this assembly and other places was the fact that there were many small businesses, particularly in the tourist areas, which would be dramatically and adversely affected by that reassessment. It was, in part, a very real concern with regard to the fact that many tourist operations and others would be put right out of business by some aspects of reassessment that has caused us all to have another look at the question.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, is the minister not aware that because his government has encouraged certain cities to go ahead on their own and introduce the new evaluations, that small businesses are being hurt? Is he aware, for instance, that in Hamilton there are businesses now facing increases ranging to 500 per cent and that a number of them will be facing bankruptcy? In particular, does he know that Centennial Volkswagen -- one particular dealership in Hamilton

-- is facing an 89 per cent increase, which will make its taxes $10,000 a year higher than the largest Volkswagen dealer in Canada, located in the Don Mills area in Toronto? Does he not see it is his duty to step in and prevent this kind of terrible hardship on the small business people in those places where new evaluation is being brought in on a local basis?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course we are terribly concerned about it. That’s why we are all having a look at those problems and inequities. The fact is that at the same time I am expressing concern over those types of situations, and I am, we have other situations where the net result of that same reassessment package is that some small home owner who has had a home for very many years and who has been underassessed --

Mr. S. Smith: This is commercial.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One can’t separate the commercial from the residential; it is all part of the tax base of the same area. At the same time the municipality would lose some assessment from the situation indicated by the member --

Mr. Nixon: Taxes are $180 a car.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the burden is, in many cases, being shifted to some small residential owner. It is because of the very great burden that we may be shifting from one individual to another individual, even if they are in different sectors, that we have this tremendous problem.

Of course, if one had it all to do over again and could start it all over again, it would be dramatically different. But now we have built-in inequities and equities in the system, and when one tries to sort them out people are going to get hurt on both sides. We have tremendous awareness of that. Indeed, I can tell the member of a lot of people in my own riding who, as residential owners, would go up 100 per cent in assessment. I can show him small businesses that are being dramatically hurt in my riding at the same time by their current assessment rate. It is because we are struggling with this that the debate has continued for quite some time.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary question to the minister for global product mandating: Would he, when he is responding to the problems faced by the small business community dealing with property tax, also look into the problems expressed by the Federation of Independent Businessmen about the effect that these corporate takeovers and mergers are having on competition in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not sure that was a supplementary question --

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, it was.

Mr. Warner: It’s relevant and important.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and I am not sure I believe that member was carrying John Bulloch’s briefcase today. In any case, I will be happy to look into all those concerns at the same time. I will report in a more reasoned way than Warren Allmand, however, I should caution the House.

Mr. Cassidy: Are you in favour of competition or against it?

Mr. S. Smith: A final supplementary: Does the minister not understand that it is possible to bring in a new market-value assessment category by category, that it isn’t necessarily required that the commercial be reassessed as is the residential? The commercial could be left alone for a while. Could he intervene with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) and bring to his attention increases such as 500 per cent in a company, Bindery Services, 490 per cent in Colortron, 314 per cent in DeWildt Fiat, 92 per cent in a company called Hacienda, and so on?

Does he not recognize a responsibility to protect the small businesses from this kind of huge property-tax increase? Will he intervene with the Minister of Revenue?

Mr. Peterson: Just as with licence plates, you can do it differently.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. I hope as I continue to discuss this matter, as I have been doing, with all of my colleagues who are concerned with it, that the member will also reflect on whether Hamilton city council, who also asked for the very reassessment he is complaining about, might join me. I know the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) -- I know where he is today -- was one of those front and centre supporting the push to have the very reassessment this member is now expressing concern about.

Mr. S. Smith: There is a mitigating factor. You know that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps Hamilton, the member for Wentworth North, and this member will join me in worrying about the effects of the reassessment they asked for. We are talking about this on a regular basis. And Gordon Dean will help us after tonight.

Mr. Martel: He is going to become your executive assistant.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Sargent: I have a question to the Premier. Is the Premier aware of secret reports within Ontario Hydro under the title of Internal Significant Event Reports dealing with malfunctions and accidents at Hydro’s nuclear stations? If so, does he know whether the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) sees these reports? If he does see these reports, would the Premier not agree that they offer little support for Hydro and government assurances that all is well with respect to safety in nuclear plants? If the Premier does not see these reports, or the minister does not see these reports, does he not agree it is high time that he did?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t speak for the Minister of Energy, but I think the honourable member will find, in the very lengthy discussions before Dr. Porter’s commission -- I can’t say whether this particular thing was referred to -- a great deal of time, I guess there was close to 400 hours of discussion and presentations, related to the whole question of the safety of the Candu system. I think I’m right in this too, that the members of the select committee met with Ontario Hydro in terms of an explanation of the system that has been developed in this country.

I think, as the minister pointed out, that there are always some problems, no one is minimizing that, but in terms of safety the Candu system is regarded as being safe. I noticed a story in the paper this morning, I think it was in the Globe and Mail, with respect to Pickering. I think the question really had been asked here before. My guess is that was also discussed before Dr. Porter’s commission, perhaps even before the select committee.

I would say to the honourable member we are as interested and concerned, we are most desirous of having safety as complete as possible. I think if one looks at the record of our system -- and I emphasize our system, I am not knowledgeable to speak about the situation near Harrisburg; but with respect to our own, it is regarded by most people who are knowledgeable in the business as being a safe system for the development of nuclear electricity.

I guess I could say I could ask Hydro, when these incidents occur from time to time, that they might send the minister and me a report. I must confess that if they sent me a technical report of that nature, I think the honourable member would be the first to say, “Then what are you going to do, Mr. Premier? You don’t understand it anyway?” His colleague is nodding his head up and down.

However, I can assure the honourable member that the Atomic Energy Control Board and the people at Ontario Hydro, from my assessment at least -- not in technical terms because I can’t express it in technical terms, but in terms of concern for and consciousness of the need for safety -- have exceeded the requirements, in many situations, as laid down by AECB.

If the honourable member wishes to pursue a particular situation, I know that the chairman of the select committee mentioned, I believe on Tuesday, that this was an area that the committee would be getting into, at the same time not duplicating the studies and the hearings that Dr. Porter has already undertaken.

I would point out to the honourable member that I think when the select committee organizes the approach to this, when there is some opportunity to meet with those people who were there to see some aspects of what went on near Harrisburg, this whole question could be properly pursued. I am as anxious as anyone else to make sure that the people understand that this system is safe.

I can’t quote them because I wasn’t there, but I understand after discussions with and presentations by Ontario Hydro, one or two members of the committee who sit on the other side of the House gave the impression, and I say it was only an impression, as to their assessment, and that was that it was a safe system. That is by hearsay only but I think probably it reflects part of the conversation that took place.

Mr. Sargent: I thank the Premier, but that’s not good enough, sir.

In the meantime would the Premier advise the House whether he thinks a series of near misses, serious human error, equipment failure, and other potential horror stories in the past year, should be covered up? Would he not agree it is of paramount importance that total freedom of information on internal nuclear reports should be available to the government and opposition members, both federal and provincial?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t doubt the honourable member’s genuine interest in the subject, I am not being facetious about that, but I think it’s also important to point out that perhaps some of the language that is being used is excessive on his part. I don’t know of any secret reports about horror stories. I’ve not seen any of this. I do know there have been reports on the day-to-day operation of Pickering and Bruce, you name it --

Mr. Sargent: I said “potential horror stories.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know, but the member is a very flamboyant, colourful, effervescent individual. I think in this situation one should --

Mr. Sweeney: It was a serious question.

Mr. Sargent: You can’t laugh this one off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. If the honourable member is saying that he knows of potential horror problems at one of our plants I think he should tell us about them.

Mr. S. Smith: Be fair. He talked about a specific report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think he should be using the language “a potential horror story.” I think it’s wrong in this situation, I really do. I’m not here to play politics on this issue. It’s serious. We should be concerned about it. In terms of the information Hydro or AECB may have, my assumption is -- and I wasn’t at any of the hearings -- that a lot of this was discussed before Dr. Arthur Porter’s commission. Has the honourable member read those aspects of that report? Maybe it would, shall we say, help him in his assessment and in his understanding of the system.

Mr. Sargent: Don’t talk down to me. Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not talking down to the member. I’m suggesting that perhaps he might read those reports and make some judgements after that.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Would the Premier be prepared to give an undertaking to this House that he would look at documents tabled with the Porter commission and with the select committee on Ontario Hydro that include minutes from a meeting of the reactor safety advisory committee, August 10 and 11, 1976, in which Atomic Energy of Canada Limited -- Mr. Brooks specifically -- says Bruce generating station A, in order to meet the requirements it was licensed under, should be operating at 65 per cent of power for safety’s sake? Will he give an undertaking that he will read those minutes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to read almost anything. I can’t undertake that I could read the complete minutes and that would in turn solve the honourable member’s problems. I assume the select committee has been dealing with this and will be dealing with it. I’ll take a look at those minutes. I’m not sure what it’s going to establish.

WESTINGHOUSE CANADA

Mr. Mackenzie: A question of the Premier, arising out of his meeting on Tuesday with the workers from the Westinghouse plant’s switch gear division in Hamilton: In view of the company’s threat to 700 jobs -- a very real threat in that plant -- what guarantees is the government prepared to provide to ensure these workers are not out of a job, and what steps will the government commit itself to in order to deal with the layoffs that are threatened?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll try to recall as much of the conversation as I can.

Mr. Peterson: Just summarize it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am going to summarize it. It was a lengthy presentation. It took an hour, so I think an adequate

summary would be what?

Mr. S. Smith: Forty minutes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: About 40 minutes?

Mr. Peterson: Just two sentences.

Mr. Laughren: Quit stalling. Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for London Centre wants something clear and concise. I’ll endeavour to do that.

Mr. Laughren: Is that in order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Sweeney: We’ll settle for concise.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why? They made a presentation, a very understandable presentation, because they were concerned about the 700 jobs. I made it quite clear to them that I would be meeting with management of Westinghouse Canada -- I think the date has been set, as a matter of fact. The ministry was monitoring the situation and had a particular study related to the electronics industry under way, and also the company’s study, which may or may not lead to certain changes, apparently is scheduled for completion around October.

I said to the representatives of the union who were there that I would be meeting with the company. We would keep them informed. I made this clear as well to Mr. Pilkey, the head of the Ontario Federation of Labour, who was with them.

It is also fair to state that as part of their presentation they indicated the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party would agree to legislation to deal with multinationals -- why just multinationals in terms of economic problems, I’m not sure. I said I knew the New Democratic Party was prepared to legislate about anything, but I really didn’t think the Liberal Party of Ontario had gone that far.

Mr. Mackenzie: A supplementary: Can the Premier tell me then what good is his intent to meet with the company some time in the next two weeks, and what good is the company’s argument that they’re going to conduct studies, when over the last week they have been systematically, throughout the plant, telling the switch-gear employees at what date their employment will terminate? In addition to that, what about the personnel management and site selection plans of the company, which obviously are intended to locate another plant away from any union involvement, if at all possible?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not familiar with the statement, other than some documentation that suggests there is some consideration of potential sites. I have not discussed this with the management of the company but I shall be doing so, that’s why we’re having a meeting. We will discuss that along with three or four other things we wish to raise with them.

I assured the ladies and gentlemen who were in to see me that we were interested in the viability of Westinghouse Canada. I assured them we were interested in it remaining within the city of Hamilton and that we would be, from our standpoint, making every effort to assist. They asked for a guarantee but I couldn’t give it to them and I can’t give it to the honourable member.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier make it clear to Westinghouse, since their so-called decentralization scheme has very clearly as its main purpose the escape from unionism, that in the province of Ontario in 1979 we just don’t accept that one sacrifices 700 jobs in a community because a company doesn’t like dealing with a labour union? Will he make it clear to the company that that day is over, unionism happens to be part of life and they’ll have to learn to live with it?

Mr. Breaugh: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what he just said?

Mr. Martel: I can’t get over that.

An hon. member: It’s by-election day.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was waiting for the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) to applaud that observation.

Mr. Martel: So were we.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is he speaking for the member on this issue?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, abso-positively -- there are a number of things we will make clear when the company comes to visit us.

Mr. S. Smith: What was the government’s position on the Fleck strike? Was the Premier against them on the Fleck strike?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me tell the member this. As much as we like Prescott we’re not going to suggest to them either they should all move out to Prescott et cetera. We’re not going to suggest they move out of the golden horseshoe to go down there to locate.

DREE PROGRAM

Mr. Rollins: I have a question of the honourable Treasurer concerning an

article that appeared in the Bancroft Times this week with reference to Hastings county being part of the new program now being negotiated between the province and the federal government in DREE. I would like assurance from the minister that Hastings county has been taken in consideration for favourable consideration as it has been, in the past, as part of the westerly boundary of the eastern Ontario agreements between the two levels of governments, whether it be DREE, ARDA, or other items?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The DREE agreement for eastern Ontario has been under negotiation for some time. I assume from the

article the honourable member sent me that the candidate for the Liberal Party down there has not really talked to his colleagues in Ottawa --

Mr. Nixon: Hastings? He is going to win.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- because he said that Hastings isn’t included. Our information at this point is that Hastings is included, as it should be.

I might also add that we thought we had Peterborough in it. We thought we had Victoria in it. We had Haliburton in and we had Muskoka in, and those were unilaterally withdrawn.

[3:00]

Mr. Rollins: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Inasmuch as I do represent a portion of Peterborough county, along with Hastings county, I regret that the federal government has not seen fit to co-operate with this minister --

Mr. Grande: Are you making a speech?

Mr. Rollins: -- and include Peterborough county as part of this agreement.

Mr. Bradley: What a waste of the question period.

Mr. Martel: That’s a great question.

Mr. Speaker: That really wasn’t a question.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it not true that Haliburton is still under negotiation, and has not been completely eliminated? It’s my understanding it is still under consideration.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Until May 22, maybe?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The pipelines to Ottawa are open these days.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I hope the member is right.

Mr. Kerrio: He usually is.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It was in; it wasn’t even under negotiation. I, for one, believe that with the handicap the electors already have in their member, they at least deserve to be included in the DREE agreement.

Mr. Conway: Wait until Bill Scott hears that.

Mr. Eakins: Our Liberal member won’t like that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He’s not a member. He’s only a candidate.

Mr. Kerrio: We can’t let the Premier in.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact remains, my riding was in too.

Mr. S. Smith: Speaking of handicapped ridings.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I want to say that the member’s riding and my riding were included at the federal government’s suggestion. To my shock, a week ago, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion informed me that because he could not include Peterborough, and because he could not include Victoria, he couldn’t include Haliburton and Muskoka.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They don’t think they can win those seats; that’s why.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: He didn’t mind including Montreal and Quebec.

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) recently inquired about the degree to which workers and their unions had an opportunity to comment on the preparation of the regulations for promulgation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Both workers and unions have been afforded an opportunity to provide comments on the regulations being proposed. To outline the extent to which input has been encouraged and indeed invited, I would like to comment specifically on each of the regulations in preparation.

First, let me deal with the regulations proposed for the industrial sector, which are essentially similar to those currently under the Industrial Safety Act. Some revisions have been proposed to correct deficiencies in the old regulations that have been identified over the past several years. A copy of the proposed draft was made available to a limited number of organizations for comment on February 12 of this year. Included among these groups was the Ontario Federation of Labour.

Second, in the case of the regulations proposed for the construction sector, an initial draft proposal was made available to the Construction Safety Association of Ontario early in January, and that association undertook to circulate the draft to a number of affected groups. A revised draft was later prepared and made available on March 6, again to a number of organizations. The Provincial Labour-Management Safety Committee was on that list and represented on that committee are the bricklayers and masons, the operating engineers, the carpenters, the labourers and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario.

Third, the regulations for the mining sector have been under review by the Barrett committee for the past three years. Eight members of the committee represent the United Steelworkers of America.

Finally, concerning the regulations for the control of exposure to occupational health hazards, comment on the proposed draft regulations covering six chemical substances and noise was invited by notices in the Ontario Gazette in July and August of last year. In addition, copies of the proposed regulations were mailed to a number of organizations likely to be affected, including 45 union and worker associations. In the case of some of these regulations, we have specifically invited comment from representatives of the Ontario Federation of Labour and the United Steelworkers of America.

[Later (3:06):]

Mr. Cassidy: The question of the member for Hamilton East was not only about consultation about the regulations under Bill 70, but also about when we could expect the bill to be proclaimed.

Since it has now been 15 weeks since that bill was adopted by this Legislature, can the minister say when the workers of Ontario will get the protection of Bill 70 by having the bill proclaimed?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I did answer that question of the member, but let the member and I be very clear. There is no delay, no interest in procrastinating, only a sincere interest in getting that bill promulgated as soon as it can be done. Let us not play that game.

[Reverting (3:04):]

FAMILY BENEFITS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a second question, on Tuesday the member for London Centre -- who is wearing a lovely tie today, by the way; that’s a terrific tie --

Mr. Peterson: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Your wife didn’t pick it though, did she?

Mr. Speaker: Time’s a-wasting.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member brought to my attention the fact I had not answered a question he posed several weeks ago regarding family benefits and the Ontario Human Rights Code. I regret this omission, but was under the impression he had obtained the answer he wished from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) in a subsequent question.

Although it could be said the current policy regarding family benefits appears to suggest discrimination on the basis of sex, the commission has indicated its view is the point in question does not fall within the provisions of the code. When the matter was brought to the attention of the commission, it replied it cannot take such cases, largely because there is considerable doubt about the enforcement of the code as it applies at present to agencies of the crown, as a legal action would entail the crown acting against the crown.

Thus, I can only repeat my original statement to the member that this particular situation does not at present fall within the scope of the human rights code.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister, in his capacity as minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Code, prepared to investigate this entire situation to bring the various agencies of the crown underneath that human rights code? Is he prepared to deal with that issue and is he prepared to give them instructions to come up with draft legislation in that particular area?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There are two issues, one is personal. The member asked me whether I feel there is discrimination. I do, as does the Minister of Community and Social Services, as he said.

Mr. Peterson: You are not prepared to do anything about it. We want to give you a chance.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Second, the matter I have referred to is clearly one of those under consideration in our review of the Ontario Human Rights Code that is under way. As I mentioned before in the House at the time of his question, that act and proposed amendments will be discussed in the ordinary legislative way.

Mr. S. Smith: When?

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Van Horne: I have a question to the Minister of Health. I suppose I could very well have asked this of the Treasurer, in the light of his opening statement today.

Is the minister prepared to deny the allegations of the London ambulance attendants’ association that many ambulances in Ontario are staffed in the summertime by students who have minimum medical, nursing or health training and who, therefore, could place the life of the injured or sick person using the service in extreme jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member has a sixth sense.

Mr. Conway: The question is, do you have five?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am just reading, at this very moment, some information on that prepared by my staff.

Mr. Laughren: Set up. Set up.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, we would not do that.

The students are required to hold a valid standard first-aid certificate issued by the Red Cross or the St. John Ambulance Association, plus a valid class F driver’s licence which enables them to drive the ambulances. These qualifications, I am told in the information I have before me, are similar to the current legislative requirements for part-time and volunteer ambulance officers. The students who will be employed in the summer of 1979 will also be certified by the Canadian Heart Foundation in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation at the basic rescuer level.

Does the honourable member require any additional information? The information before me is extremely lengthy, and I haven’t had a chance to go through it, so perhaps I could take whatever supplementary question he has as notice and I will get the full information back to him.

Mr. Van Horne: By way of supplementary: No doubt the minister has information in front of him because we have been chasing this particular item for a couple of days. I would say, by way of background, that the situation has been presented to the ministry for the last couple of years and, specifically, the allegations I have received lead me to ask this question.

In the regulations,

section 14 suggests that in addition to nursing training et cetera, a person with a health discipline approved by the ministry might be qualified. We have instances of geography and psychology students acting as summertime ambulance attendants.

Does the minister consider those equivalent qualifications -- geology, geography or psychology?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have already indicated the qualifications they must all have, regardless of the discipline in which they are training.

Mr. Van Horne: But that hasn’t happened.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will be glad to respond to every single point addressed to the ministry in the most recent inquiry of which I have been made familiar. I have not been made aware of any earlier inquiry.

Mr. Conway: We have a used-car salesman as Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will be glad to share with the member information on all aspects of it. I hope to reassure him the standards are in fact quite appropriate for the summer students who are employed to assist as staff holidays rotate through the summer months.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health who last week made an announcement in this House that was purportedly to solve the problem of opted-out physicians.

To avoid accusations of hyperbole I’d like to quote just one line from his initial statement: “that this announcement is based on a partnership between health care professionals, the medical community. the public and the government.” He also said that “this partnership, despite some difficulties, has worked well in Ontario.” Could I ask the minister how he rationalizes, or dared to make, that statement in light of this quote from the general secretary of the Ontario Medical Association to the AMA convention in the United States? The quote is: “Partnership with government does not exist.”

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would remind the honourable member -- perhaps he couldn’t see from where he sits in the chamber -- at the time I made that statement last week the gentleman to whom he refers was sitting in the gallery. He was there with the president of the medical association and most of the executive of the medical association --

Mr. McClellan: Sitting there laughing at you.

Mr. Warner: You could hear the chuckles from here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- as well as the president and executive director of the hospital association. I’m not familiar with that particular quote, but I suggest that the deeds --

Mr. Warner: You should be.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and their very presence here to back up that statement confirm the partnership to which I made reference.

Mr. Martel: Blame the opposition; we initiated the legislation.

Mr. Warner: You failed miserably.

Mr. McClellan: Why shouldn’t he be here? He knows a sucker when he sees one.

Mr. Cooke: It is nonsense.

Mr. Warner: Don’t talk on medicare.

Mr. Breaugh: I would take the man at his word, as that is exactly what he means. Would the minister then care to comment on Dr. Moran’s description of the way the government arrives at physicians’ fees? Again I will quote: “They are a sham, a charade; we are in a no-win situation.”

Mr. Martel: He didn’t say that, did he?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If I remember correctly, the appearance at the AMA -- and I haven’t seen that particular report -- was many months ago. In fact the opinion was expressed on several occasions by representatives of the medical association --

Mr. Warner: No, no, wrong again. Try something else.

Ms. Gigantes: He’s been saying it for months.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that while we were under the anti-inflation board controls as laid down by the federal government, the negotiations were hamstrung by the ceiling imposed.

Mr. S. Smith: Were you against it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We all knew going into negotiations in that three-year period what the upper limit was of the average income increase for a physician; what there was left to negotiate was the distribution. With respect, any time that statement has been made in my presence -- and it has been made -- it has been with reference to that restriction that was placed on negotiations for over three years.

Mr. Warner: Wrong; wrong again.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved first reading of Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, this is a reintroduction of a similar bill that was on the Order Paper and died last session. The purpose is to extend the eligibility for compensation under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, 1971, to any person who has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment and whose conviction is subsequently quashed. I might add there is a significant amendment to it in that with this change it would provide for cases such as the Peter Treu case which could now receive consideration.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

[3:15]

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the bill has been the result of an academic research project sponsored by students of Wilfrid Laurier University -- Cheryl Oleniuk, Lori Rheaume and Tom Robson. The purpose of the bill is to require the Workmen’s Compensation Board to establish at least one sheltered workshop for handicapped persons in Ontario. The board is also authorized to provide assistance to persons or associations who wish to establish sheltered workshops. The amendment is designed to place jobless injured workers in full-time employment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 13 I wish to indicate to the House the business for tonight, tomorrow and next week. This afternoon and evening, we will continue with the debate on the speech from the throne, and similarly tomorrow morning, Friday. On Monday, April 9, we will have the windup of the reply to the speech from the throne with a vote planned for about 5:45.

Tuesday afternoon, April 10, we will do legislation and take into consideration Bills 13, 14, 15 16 and 18 and in the evening we hear from the Treasurer. On Wednesday, April 11, the resources development, administration of justice and general government committees may meet in the morning. On Thursday, April 12, we take up private members’ public business, being ballot items three and four with adjournment planned on Thursday, April 12, at 6 p.m. for us to reconvene at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April 17.

While I am on my feet, I wonder if we might have the unanimous consent of the House for the Treasurer to present the necessary supply bill to pick up the supplementary estimates that the committee of supply dealt with on Thursday evening and Friday morning of last week?

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for such action?

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUPPLY ACT

The following bill was given first, second and third readings on motion by Hon. F.S. Miller:

Bill 40,

An Act granting to Her Majesty certain additional sums of money for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979.

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. Belanger: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the debate, I would like to express my appreciation for the excellent manner in which you conduct the business of this House. You have been fair in all your decisions and I am sure this has been appreciated by all three parties.

Mr. Speaker, I will be using up a considerable amount of time this afternoon. As a matter of fact, I will be using up some of the time I haven’t used during this past year.

Mr. Martel: It is going to be a filibuster.

Mr. Belanger: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member who likes to get up and boast about what this government has done.

Mr. Nixon: It is going to be a short speech.

Mr. Belanger: I am not a member who will speak up in the House for the sake of publicity.

Mr. Lawlor: You are on the wrong side of the fence.

Mr. Belanger: And I am not a member who speaks in this House -- or who shouts from my seat -- about what this government should be doing, or what I want for my counties of Prescott and Russell.

Mr. Nixon: Why are you here?

Mr. Stong: You must be going to retire.

Mr. Belanger: When I have a request in my riding I go directly to the source: the minister, or even the Premier (Mr. Davis), if need be.

An hon. member: Or the Premier’s advisers. That is where the power is.

Mr. Belanger: Mr. Speaker, that is the way I operate.

Mr. Nixon: You don’t know Lorne Henderson, do you?

Mr. Riddell: Is this your swan song, Albert?

Mr. Belanger: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to have the opportunity of participating in the debate on the speech from the throne.

Monsieur l’Orateur: C’est un plaisir pour moi aujourd’hui de participer aux débats sur le discours du trône.

Je regrette cependant que le Chef de l’Opposition officielle ne soit pas ici pour entendre mes commentaires puisqu’il a manifesté un si vif intérêt dans l’est de l’Ontario et de mon comté. En août dernier, par exemple, selon le journal de Prescott, il aurait dit qu’il encouragerait l’industrie à quitter le centre prospère de la province pour aller s’établir dans l’est de l’Ontario. Je crains que le leader de l’opposition ne soit jamais dans une position pour avoir cette influence.

Mr. Martel: Oh, no, the north, Albert.

Mr. Belanger: Malheureusement, il semble qu’il dise la même chose aux gens des autres régions de la province et j’ai nettement l’impression qu’il n’a pas encore informé les gens de la région de Hamilton, de Burlington et de Toronto qu’il songe à déménager l’industrie de ces localités vers d’autres régions de la province. Évidemment, si c’est vraiment son intention, ce dont je doute sincèrement, il est fort probable qu’il adressait sa déclaration pour plaire la population locale comme c’est le cas dans un grand nombre de ses déclarations.

Je regrette aussi que le député de Nippissing, Monsieur Bolan, soit absent. Lui aussi s’est rendu dans les beaux comtés de Prescott et de Russell en disant lors d’une réunion libérale et je cite: “Nous avons un problème dans Prescott et Russell; c’est Albert Bélanger.”

Mr. Martel: That’s nasty, Albert.

Mr. Belanger: En réalisant qu’il s’adressait à ses amis libéraux, je suppose qu’il voulait dire que les Libéraux ont un problème avec Albért Bélanger parce qu’il fait du si bon travail pour ses électeurs que le Libéraux n’éliront jamais un député dans Prescott et Russell.

Toutefois, je ne suis pas ici aujourd’hui pour m’attaquer aux déclarations que les Libéraux ont faites dans diverses régions de l’Ontario --

Mr. Martel: Now you are boasting.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: No, in French it is not boasting.

Mr. Belanger: -- surtout parce qu’ils chantent des refrains si différents dans chaque région de la province, qu’il est presque impossible de déterminer leur politique sur une question ou l’autre. En plus, je crois que les gens de l’Ontario commencent à réaliser que le Parti Libéral est contradictoire, opportuniste et pragmatique dans son évaluation des problèmes véritables des gens de cette province.

C’est pourquoi je suis heureux d’appuyer le discours du trône. Les préceptes qui en découlent reflètent la prévoyance, le souci et la compréhension dont ce gouvernement a toujours fait preuve pour relever les défis qui existent en Ontario. Bien que le discours du trône traite de nouveaux domaines et de principes généraux --

Mr. McKessock: Do you believe that, Jack?

Mr. Belanger: -- il prouve que ce gouvernement sait reconnaître les défis qui nous sont imposés dans les sphères économiques et sociales, et qu’il est prêt à les relever.

Je suis particulièrement heureux de voir, par exemple, que l’on se propose d’établir un fonds d’encouragement à l’emploi, qui va servir de base à une collaboration entre le gouvernement et le secteur des affaires afin d’assurer que l’Ontario continue de répondre à la demande croissante d’emplois.

Bien que 140,000 nouveaux emplois aient été créés on Ontario l’an dernier, tous les membres de cette Chambre reconnaissent le besoin d’initiatives audacieuses de la part du gouvernement pour s’assurer que notre économie demeure concurrentielle, en d’autres mots, s’assurer d’attirer de nouvelles industries et leur permettre de maintenir un niveau de développement qui puisse garder le pas avec le nombre grandissant de travailleurs que arrivent sur le marché du travail.

Pour ma part, je crois qu’à long terme, le fonds d’encouragement à l’emploi sera avantageux pour la province. D’une part, il va nous permettre d’encourager la croissance industrielle dans les secteurs de l’économie où il existe un potentiel de développement d’emplois. D’autre part, il va permettre d’attirer de nouvelles industries et de développer des produits qui ouvriront de nouveaux marchés et maintiendront notre position concurrentielle au sein des marchés traditionnels au Canada et à l’étranger.

D’aucuns prétendent que cette initiative représente une faveur de la part du gouvernement à la grosse entreprise. Nos amis libéraux évidemment appuient l’idée de fournir des encouragements à Ford une journée, puis changent d’idée et prétendent plus tard le contraire.

Mr. Wildman: Giveaway.

Mr. Martel: That’s having it both ways.

Mr. Belanger: Je crois qu’il incombe au gouvernement d’encourager le progrès et d’aider à rendre l’industrie et le commerce viables. Je crois également que nous devons envisager objectivement la réalité de l’industrie et du commerce sur le plan international. Nous devons réaliser que nous vivons dans un monde dominé par des sociétés internationales. Évidemment nous pourrions faire des illusions et ignorer ce fait. Nous pourrions dire que dorénavant nous n’encouragerons pas les industries internationales à s’établir en Ontario. Nous pourrions dire que nous n’offrirons pas d’encouragement aux sociétés internationales étrangères.

Mais il semble que si nous ignorons cette réalité, les victimes seraient surtout les travailleurs de cette province. À mon avis, une approche rationnelle serait d’établir un équilibre entre l’encouragement aux industries domestiques tout en reconnaissant en même temps objectivement que nous devons attirer notre part équitable de capitaux d’investissements des grandes corporations internationales.

À

titre de député d’un comté qui possède un grand potentiel de croissance industrielle, mes électeurs et moi serons heureux d’accueillir de nouvelles industries, de nouvelles usines et les nouveaux emplois qui seront créés par suite de cette initiative, surtout parce que cette politique signifie un emploi et un investissement à long terme dans cette province.

Ce dernier point a été l’un des critères soulignés par le Ministère de l’Industrie et du Tourisme dans un récent discours adressé au Board of Trade de Toronto. Dans cette allocution le Ministre a énoncé clairement les défis qu’affronte la province en terme de développements économiques. Les idées et les mesures proposées par le Ministre et subséquemment reprises dans le discours du trône constituent une attitude responsable envers un problème très difficile qui constitue un véritable défi. Le fonds d’encouragement à l’emploi va aider l’Ontario à maintenir sa position forte dans un monde où la concurrence est de plus en plus complexe et brutale sur le plan commercial international.

[3:30]

Bien que le fonds d’encouragement à l’emploi représente une initiative importante du gouvernement pour assurer la croissance économique continué et la création de nouveaux emplois dans cette province, le discours du trône souligne également son engagement constant pour contrôler l’augmentation des dépenses gouvernementales et le processus de réglementation, deux points qui contribuent à la création d’un climat économique positif qui encourage l’investissement et le progrès dans cette province.

À ce sujet, j’ai été heureux de noter que le gouvernement va continuer de modifier et d’améliorer le système de réglementation concernant les petites entreprises. Les mesures visant à donner des responsabilités et une plus grande autonomie où c’est approprié, aux industries, associations et municipalités, vont aider à diminuer la participation du gouvernement dans nos affaires quotidiennes.

Toutefois, monsieur l’Orateur, la

section du discours du trône qui aura peut-être le plus grand intérêt pour les gens de Prescott et Russell se rapporte aux initiatives à continuer, à étendre ou à apporter dans le domaine de l’agriculture.

En qualité de membre de ce gouvernement, je suis fier de notre collaboration avec nos communautés agricoles. Je souligne le mot collaboration car il caractérise exactement l’attitude de notre gouvernement au cours des trois dernières décennies.

Nous reconnaissons que l’agriculteur est un homme d’affaires indépendant. Nous comprenons également les difficultés et les problèmes de nos agriculteurs quand il s’agit de maintenir des opérations agricoles rentables. Ayant vécu toute ma vie dans une petite localité agricole, monsieur l’Orateur, je peux parler en toute connaissance de cause de l’importante contribution qu’apportent les agriculteurs a notre société.

Leur contribution s’étend au-delà du rôle très important qu’ils jouent au sein de l’économie provinciale, le rôle assurant que l’Ontario possède des réserves suffisantes de centaines de produits agricoles. Leur contribution en est également une de valeur et de bon sens qu’ils apportent dans notre vie. Au fur et à mesure que notre société devient plus complexe, il est bon de retourner dans une localité où les gens n’ont pas encore perdu leur perspective de la vie, où le combat le plus fondamental de l’homme, son combat avec la nature, continue d’être le point de mire de notre activité quotidienne.

N’allez toutefois pas en conclure ou en déduire que la communauté agricole n’a pas à affronter les mêmes problèmes que nous. L’agriculteur, comme nous tous, est la victime de l’inflation et fait face aux mêmes besoins que ses amis des centres urbains. Comme tout autre homme d’affaire, il doit faire face aux défis constants d’équilibrer ses comptes, d’offrir un niveau de vie satisfaisant à sa famille et de construire une communauté qui réponde vraiment à ses besoins et à ceux de son prochain.

C’est en reconnaissant cette réalité, que le discours du trône a renouvelé l’engagement de ce gouvernement de continuer à travailler avec notre communauté agricole pour assurer que l’agriculture demeurera un élément important dans la vie de cette province.

Il est certain que l’agriculture prédomine dans les comtés unis de Prescott et Russell où plus de 260,000 acres sont consacrés à des fins agricoles. On compte en plus 60,000 acres de terre non mis en valeur au sein des régions agricoles. Quelque 7,500 personnes vivent sur des fermes avec des ventes agricoles de $50 ou plus tandis que 20,000 autres vivent dans des localités rurales.

Prescott et Russell comportent un bon équilibre de petites, moyennes et grandes opérations agricoles. Nous produisons une gamme étendue de récoltes bien que l’industrie laitière joue le rôle le plus significatif dans l’activité agricole des comtés unis.

Monsieur l’Orateur, le gouvernement de l’Ontario a mis en oeuvre de nombreux programmes pour aider les agriculteurs à maintenir des opérations agricoles rentables. L’assurance des récoltes, les programmes de stabilisation de revenue agricole et de revenue de l’élevage du bétail sont de bons exemples de programmes ayant pour but de permettre aux agriculteurs de continuer à maintenir des opérations rentables sur un marché souvent imprévisible et soumis à des facteurs climatiques qui peuvent affecter le niveau agricole d’une année à l’autre.

Dans les domaines où la province a travaillé directement en collaboration avec nos agriculteurs, nous avons connu un nombre remarquable de succès. Le meilleur exemple est peut-être le domaine du drainage qui, au cours des dernières années a pris beaucoup d’importance dans l’est de l’Ontario. Dans les domaines où la province a participé à des programmes de partage des dépenses avec le gouvernement fédéral, il y a certainement des améliorations possibles, surtout en ce qui concerne la récente décision du gouvernement fédéral de se retirer de plusieurs accords de partage de dépenses.

Un domaine où ceci a créé beaucoup d’incertitude concerne les débouchés de drainage municipaux qui, conformément à l’accord relatif à l’aménagement rural et au développement agricole ont été partagés à parts égales aux niveaux fédéral, provincial et municipal.

Il vaut peut-être la peine, monsieur l’Orateur, de prendre quelques minutes pour énoncer le problème auquel nous ferons face dans l’est de l’Ontario si le programme de drainage municipal est éliminé par le gouvernement fédéral et c’est pourquoi j’ai été particulièrement heureux que le discours du trône contienne un engagement de la part du gouvernement de travailler en vue de la continuation du programme ARDA ou d’un programme de même calibre.

Je n’ai guère à expliquer aux députés des régions rurales l’importance d’un bon système de drainage pour étendre et améliorer les récoltes et les acres en production.

Mr. McKessock: Rene, you’re the only one who can heckle him.

Mr. Belanger: À la suite du programme de drainage dans cette province, près de 1,200,000 d’acres disposent maintenant d’un drainage intensif. Pour ceux d’entre vous qui ne sont au courant du programme, un agriculteur peut obtenir un prêt de sa municipalité pour couvrir le coût à concurrence de 75 per cent de l’installation d’un système de drainage. L’agriculteur paie un taux d’intérêt de six pour cent et le prêt peut être remboursé sur une période de dix ans. La province absorbe la différence entre l’intérêt payé par les agriculteurs et le taux d’intérêt courant.

Dans l’exercice financier 1977-78, par exemple, des prêts de plus de $18,000,000 ont été accordés à quelque 2,600 projets de drainage. Cette année, $3,800,000 auront été verses pour couvrir l’intérêt dont la province a assumé la responsabilité.

En plus des prêts, la province accorde des subventions aux agriculteurs pour les aider à installer des débouchés de drainage adéquats en fonction du système de drainage sur leur propriété. Ces subventions sont versées aux agriculteurs par les municipalités en fonction du montant des coûts de drainage évalués selon les terres servant à des fins agricoles. Cette année, $4,500,000 ont été mis de côté pour ce programme.

Bref, le gouvernement provincial encourage activement les agriculteurs à installer des systèmes de drainage efficaces sur leur ferme pour accroître la production et le nombre d’acres utilisés pour la culture. Nous pouvons voir le résultat de ce programme dans le passage de la production de foin, d’avoine et de graines mixtes au maïs. Les terres consacrées au maïs dans l’est de l’Ontario se sont multipliées par 10 entre 1966 et 1976 et ce changement prend de plus en plus d’envergure. L’une des principales raisons de ce changement a été l’installation d’un bon système de drainage.

Toutefois, le programme de la province ne peut être vraiment efficace que si des débouchés de drainage adéquats sont installés par les municipalités pour que l’eau soit évacuée des fermes plus rapidement.

Afin d’aider les municipalités à développer des canaux de drainage adéquats, la province et le gouvernement fédéral ont convenu en vertu du programme ARDA de fournir les deux tiers du coût de l’installation des canaux de drainage municipaux. La municipalité aurait à payer le dernier tiers du coût d’installation. Ces dernières années, ce programme a été très avantageux pour l’agriculture, l’agriculteur et la communauté.

Toutefois, le 5 décembre 1978, le gouvernement fédéral annonçait son intention de cesser d’appuyer financièrement le programme ARDA et rétroactivement au 8 septembre. En réalité, cela signifiait que tout projet de drainage qui n’était pas déjà en construction à cette date ne serait pas admissible pour l’aide financière fédérale d’un tiers.

Entre le 8 septembre et le 5 décembre, des travaux de drainage au coût de $1,700,000 avaient été entrepris. Il y avait dans le voisinage de $5,200,000 de rapports d’ingénierie complétés et sur le point d’aller en appel d’offre. En plus, il y avait quelque 69 drains, ayant coûté an cours de l’année dernière entre $40,000 et $50,000 chacun qui totaliseront un autre montant de $3,000,000 portant ainsi le montant total de travail sur les canaux de drainage municipaux à environ $10,000,000 pour l’est de l’Ontario. Ces projets avaient été entrepris par les municipalités impliquées dans ce programme avec l’assurance qu’un tiers serait payé par le gouvernement fédéral en vertu du programme ARDA.

Malheureusement, par suite de la décision du gouvernement fédéral, un bon nombre de ces projets ont été interrompus et les municipalités qui se sont engagées dans des programmes coûteux de drainage pourront être obligées de payer les deux tiers du coût. Le gouvernement provincial s’est engagé à fournir un tiers du coût. Mais à mon avis, le gouvernement fédérale a traité cette situation d’une façon déplorable et a manifesté une indifférence totale à l’égard des municipalités et des agriculteurs concernés.

Mr. Wildman: Did you Liberals hear that?

Mr. Belanger: Mais il existe encore un autre aspect malheureux à cette situation. Bien que la province encourage les agriculteurs à mettre en valeur des systèmes adéquats de drainage pour leur ferme, dans la plupart des cas, ces efforts seront tout à fait inutiles à moins que les canaux municipaux soient disponsibles pour l’écoulement des eaux provenant des systèmes de drainage sur les fermes.

Dans mon propre comté de Prescott-Russell, nous avons eu beaucoup de succès en versant $2,200,000 pour les canaux de drainage municipaux en vertu de l’accord ARDA. Dans mon comté comme dans la plupart des comtés de l’est de l’Ontario, il reste toutefois un besoin d’accomplir encore beaucoup plus dans ce domaine. Mais à moins que les municipalités ne reçoivent une aide financière par l’entremise d’un programme d’assistance partagée, le programme de drainage des fermes et celui des municipalités pourrait être sérieusement affecté.

[3:45]

À mon avis, il est essentiel que l’assistance pour les canaux de drainage soit offerte pour aider les municipalités. Que la source des fonds demeure avec l’ARDA, ou qu’une autre entente soit établie, le coût ne devrait pas et ne peut pas être laissé à la province et aux municipalités seulement. Il faut que ce programme continue d’être un effort conjoint aux trois niveaux.

Je dois avouer, monsieur l’Orateur, que je ne comprends par les motifs du gouvernement fédéral de se retirer de ce programme qui a fourni une assistance formidable dans les communautés rurales de l’est de l’Ontario. En plus du programme de drainage, cet accord pour aider les agriculteurs a joué un rôle important en aidant les agriculteurs à améliorer leur terre de culture. Depuis 1962, par exemple, environ $4,000,000 ont été dépensés pour aider à l’agrandissement de 355 fermes dans la région de Prescott et Russell.

J’ajouterais également que l’ARDA a aidé à financer le Parc Provincial Carillon et a fourni des fonds pour la recherche et les études de praticabilité pour le projet de la rivière South Nation.

Ce dernier projet, monsieur l’Orateur, est d’une importance considérable pour les agriculteurs dans ma région. Comme vous le savez peut-être, avec toutes les améliorations qui ont résulté de l’installation d’un système adéquat de drainage, la rapidité avec laquelle la quantité d’eau coulant dans la rivière South Nation s’est accrue.

Bien que les inondations printanières et les inondations subites en été peuvent causer des dommages considérables aux récoltes, ce problème peut être contrôlé par des écluses à Plantagenet et une étude à ce sujet est en voie d’être entreprise pour examiner la possibilité de creuser le lit rocheux a Plantagenet. Une fois achevé, ce projet devrait aider à réduire le danger d’inondation pour les agriculteurs dans mon comté, et maintenir un niveau d’eau stable durant les sécheresses de l’été.

Monsieur l’Orateur, je suis également heureux que le discours du trône propose l’établissement d’un programme d’aide modifiée pour nos agriculteurs. Ce programme que je crois comprendre, sera appelé “l’Ontario Farm Productivity Incentive Program” et remplacera le programme de subventions qui a été établi en 1967. Au cours des douze dernières années, ce programme a permis aux agriculteurs de moderniser et d’agrandir leurs opérations. J’apprends que quelques $165,000,000 ont été versés à environ 90,000 agriculteurs dans le cadre de ce programme, et que des demandes d’aide ont été acceptées jusqu’à la fin de mars de cette année.

Le nouveau programme d’encouragement sera établi pour cinq ans et son budget sera fixé sur une base annuelle. Il aura pour but d’aider les agriculteurs dans des projets d’aménagement du sol et du contrôle de l’érosion y compris l’entreposage du fumier et l’aménagement d’eau pour le bétail. Il servira également à la construction d’aménagements de production spécifiques pour les agriculteurs qui n’ont jamais participé au programme de subventions. Il y aura des projets comme les granges pour le bétail, des laiteries, des silos, des serres et même des projets pour le sirop d’érable.

Un autre développement proposé dans le discours du trône concerne la machinerie agricole.

Mr. Wildman: You can never get parts.

Mr. Belanger: Par suite d’un effort de co-opération entre les fabricants, les distributeurs, et les concessionnaires qui ont rencontré les responsables du gouvernement, on travaillera à l’élaboration d’un code d’éthique qui assurera aux agriculteurs des contrats d’achat standard des garanties minimum et un service adéquat de réparation et de pièces de rechange.

Mr. Wildman: Are they going to bring in legislation?

Mr. Belanger: À mon avis, il était grand temps que l’on y voit. Il n’y a rien de plus frustrant pour un agriculteur que d’avoir de la machinerie en panne en pleine saison de semence ou de moisson parce qu’il n’est pas en mesure d’obtenir une pièce de rechange.

Mr. Wildman: It had better be in legislation.

Mr. Belanger: J’ai été également heureux de voir que l’on continuera le programme Agricrew. L’an dernier, ce programme qui emploie des étudiants pour travailler dans les fermes en équipe de cinq pour des périodes d’une semaine, a été entrepris à

titre expérimental dans la région de Cornwall pendant 4 semaines. La majorité des participants ont de 16 à 18 ans et la plupart, avaient une certaine expérience agricole.

À la suite du succès de l’été dernier, quatre équipes seront basées à Plantagenet et serviront les comtés de Prescott, Russell, Glengarry et Stormont.

De mon point de vue, ce programme pourrait être bénéfique, à la fois aux étudiants qui y participent et aux agriculteurs. Chaque équipe travaille cinq jours et l’agriculteur n’a droit qu’à une seule équipe par été. Il en coûte à l’agriculteur $90 par jour sur lesquels il reçoit un remboursement de $15 de la part du gouvernement. Le programme permet à l’étudiant d’obtenir une excellente expérience en même temps qu’un revenu modeste et ce programme peut être d’une grande utilité pour l’agriculteur qui a un projet spécial à entreprendre.

Le but cependant n’est pas d’interférer avec les occasions d’emploi pour la main-d’oeuvre saisonnière an cours des périodes de moisson. J’espère que les agriculteurs, dans ma région, profiteront de ce programme et que l’on utilisera des étudiants locaux.

While these programs are encouraging, there is one important issue that is causing some concern to dairy farmers in Prescott and Russell. I am, of course, referring to the problem of industrial milk quotas. This issue, however, attains added significance because it bears directly on Ontario’s position as a cheddar cheese and specialty cheese producer.

As most members know, the cheddar cheese industry in eastern Ontario has gone through a period of transformation during the past decade. In particular, many of the smaller cheese factories have been amalgamated into larger operations. Despite this, however, our cheddar cheese industry has not kept pace with the increased demand for cheddar cheese in recent years, particularly in foreign markets. In fact, we are producing about the same volume of cheddar cheese as we did five years ago.

Last month Grant Smith, vice-president of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, told a group in my riding that Canadian producers only met half their quota to the United States market last year. At the same time, there is a growing demand for Ontario cheddar cheese in Britain and there is no doubt that we could increase our sales in that market. There is also some concern that we will be unable to meet future demands for aged cheddar cheese, despite the assurances of Eugene Whelan that there is no shortage of cheddar cheese.

Mr. Riddell: A good minister.

Mr. Belanger: Yet, despite this rising demand for Ontario cheddar cheese, many factories are operating at a 50 per cent capacity.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Where was your minister when they were giving quotas to Quebec?

Mr. Belanger: According to cheese producers and dairy farmers I have talked to, the problem stems from the fact that industrial milk quotas for Ontario have not kept pace with the increased demand for cheddar cheese. I am told that a number of cheese manufacturers have imported surplus industrial milk from Quebec to produce Ontario cheddar cheese.

Mr. McKessock: Did we take Quebec’s quotas?

Mr. Belanger: If this is the case, our dairy farmers who depend on industrial milk sales are getting the short end of the stick.

Mr. McKessock: What should we do?

Mr. Belanger: The controversy over industrial milk quotas is not new. Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture and Food has brought this matter to the attention of the federal minister and has asked that the industrial milk quota be increased.

Mr. Wildman: Why bother? You already said he was indifferent.

Mr. Belanger: Though the price for industrial milk has been increased, the request for an increased quota for Ontario appears to have fallen on deaf ears, so far as the federal government is concerned.

I believe that a national milk supply management program is in the best interest of the dairy industry in Canada. At the same time, however, it seems to me that the system has become too rigid. It has failed to adapt to changing circumstances within the dairy industry. The current problem just doesn’t make sense. We have the production capability and we have the demand for Ontario cheddar cheese. There is also a growing market for many specialty cheeses produced here in Ontario. Part of the solution, of course, is to place a higher import limit on foreign cheese brought into Canada. The limit currently stands at 45,000,000 pounds per year.

It also seems to me that we must take a serious look at the quota system, as it applies currently to Ontario. I understand that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food recently has made some significant changes in relation to its role with the dairy industry. I also understand that the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and the Ontario Dairy Council have established a committee to review methods of allocating supplies of industrial milk. These are steps in the right direction.

Mr. Riddell: That report is completed, Albert.

Mr. Belanger: Good.

Mr. McKessock: Will Quebec give us some of its quota?

Mr. Belanger: You will have to ask Eugene Whelan.

There is an urgent need to reconcile the current market sharing quotas, which are based strictly on production, with the changing marketing criteria in Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: Considering what Trudeau said about Quebec farmers, he will probably give us some.

Mr. Belanger: In the past, the Canadian Dairy Commission has proven reluctant to bring about the necessary changes, though a subcommittee of the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee is reviewing the national program.

It is interesting to note that in an

article in Le Droit last Wednesday, several Ontario members were criticized because we asked for increased Ontario milk quotas. According to the article, which appears to have relied heavily on Mr. Whelan’s

interpretation of the problem facing the dairy and the cheddar industries, these members have misrepresented the situation.

Mr. Laughren: Shame.

Mr. Belanger: Mr. Whelan can say what he wants, but the Canadian Dairy Commission is ultimately responsible for allocating the milk quotas on a national basis.

Mr. McKessock: And historically too. Right.

Mr. Belanger: Each province must work within the limits it establishes. The milk supply management committee -- which is chaired by the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission, and which is composed of representatives from each province within the national plan -- can make recommendations to the Canadian Dairy Commission with respect to the quota system. But it is still the ultimate responsibility of the Canadian Dairy Commission to issue these quotas.

[4:00]

It is not a simple matter of asking for more quota, nor does the final decision rest with the supply management committee. Moreover, to suggest that Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture and Food is wrong in asking Mr. Whelan to assist us in increasing Ontario’s quota is to say that Mr. Whelan has nothing to do with the Canadian Dairy Commission, which is hardly the case.

We all recognize that the national milk plan was designed to meet the problems that existed a decade ago. But times have changed. People’s tastes have changed. We have had a consolidation in the processing and producing sectors. Population patterns have changed. New markets have been opened up. It’s time that the national plan adjusted to all these changes.

If this problem is not resolved, I can foresee continued problems. If producers cannot get more quota to produce more cheese to meet the demand of a growing international market, these markets may very well be lost to other suppliers. Many factories are now operating on a marginal capacity. We have been encouraging them to expand their over-the-counter sales, which are affected by the quota system. We have been urging Ottawa to place lower limits on the amount of imported cheese. Many farmers are changing over to beef operations and, frankly, I can’t blame them.

In the long term, however, we must improve the national milk plan and make it responsive to this province’s needs. Some may say that I am being selfish.

Mr. Laughren: No, not selfish.

Mr. Belanger: The fact of the matter is that I am. The dairy industry is important to my riding in eastern Ontario. Heaven knows that our farmers are among the best producers in the world and they deserve our support, as does our Canadian cheese industry. It’s very insulting when you read an

article as appeared in the Star, April 4, where Mr. Trudeau says that farmers are professional complainers.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right, they’re voters.

Mr. Laughren: Do you agree with that, Leo?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He’ll regret the day he said that.

Mr. Belanger: I resent that kind of remark, even if it does come from the Prime Minister of Canada. I have lived and worked with farmers all of my life and when they complain about something it’s a legitimate complaint.

In that respect, I believe that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food is meeting its mandate. In recent years, the ministry has co-operated with marketing boards and producers to promote Ontario farm products at home and abroad. I hardly need to remind the members here of the success of the Foodland Ontario program which, through its promotional and marketing campaigns --

Mr. Laughren: It’s like your buy Canadian campaign.

Mr. Belanger: -- has assisted in raising consumer consciousness of the products produced here in Ontario. The speech from the throne promised a further commitment in this program, both within the ministry and from the industry. We have seen increases in sales of such products as turkeys, grapes, salad vegetables, soya beans and everything.

In the international market, the ministry has played a key role in increasing our sales abroad. The trade missions carried out by the ministry --

Mr. Laughren: Oh, you haven’t done much to save your cheese factories, Albert.

Mr. Belanger: -- have resulted in increased sales to Britain, Europe, Asia, and the United States, and I believe that this Minister of Agriculture and Food deserves a great deal of credit in this regard.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right on, good suggestion.

Mr. Belanger: I could run though the list of places where he or his officials have been and the millions of dollars in sales that have resulted from their efforts, but I won’t. Suffice it to say that our farmers are the beneficiaries of their efforts.

I might also say that the ministry is working with our farmers in two other important areas; that is, in the area of research in agriculture and the education of a new generation of farmers and agribusiness people.

In my view, such a program would meet a very real need for those of francophone background wishing to pursue a career in agriculture. The initiatives outlined in the speech from the throne reflect the concern and commitment that we of this government have to the farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Now you have gone too far.

Mr. Belanger: It is a commitment that is based upon a partnership and upon a philosophical belief that government must work with the agricultural community to ensure that farming continues to provide a viable income --

Mr. Cassidy: Isn’t your motto who governs least, governs best?

Mr. Belanger: -- for farmers and that agriculture remains an important sector in the provincial economy. Moreover it is a partnership that will ensure that the people of Ontario will continue to have access to an abundant supply of farm products at reasonable prices.

Mr. Cassidy: Could you specify the farm products?

Mr. Belanger: At the same time, it is important that urban consumers recognize that the farmer is entitled to a fair return on his investment and that his costs, like everyone else’s, are constantly rising.

Despite recent rises in the price of beef, which has been the source of considerable complaint on the part of consumers, the beef industry is only now recovering from a poor market of previous years. In my riding, for instance, many farmers are using their recent returns to pay off debts which mounted during the period when beef prices were really low.

Mr. Cassidy: Oui, et ça dure toujours.

Mr. Belanger: Mais en même temps je dois dire, que la situation est changée.

Au cours des dix dernières années, un progrès considérable a été fait pour établir un cadre solide qui permettrait aux francophones d’avoir accès aux services du gouvernement, dans le domaine de l’éducation, des soins de santé et des services sociaux dans leur propre langue.

Mr. Wildman: That is not true in the north.

Le gouvernement a voulu ainsi améliorer le niveau des services dans les principaux ministères afin de mieux répondre aux besoins de la communauté francophone.

[4:15]

Dans mon comté presque tons les gens sinon tous ceux qui sont en contact direct avec le public sont bilingues. Ce groupe comprend des représentants auprès des agriculteurs et les employés du Ministère des Services Sociaux. Ce dernier ministère maintient quatre bureaux locaux a Hawkesbury, Casselman, Alexandria et Rockland. Ces services fournissent aux citoyens de ces régions l’accès bilingue aux programmes du ministère, comportant des services de garderies d’enfants, des services sociaux de la province, la réadaptation professionnelle, des programmes pour les citoyens âgés et des programmes pour les arriérés mentaux.

Pour répondre au mandat du gouvernement envers les francophones, des efforts considérables ont été faits depuis 1971. Cependant, je ne prétends pas que tout est parfait parce que ce n’est pas le cas. Je ne crois pas que comme gouvernement, nous pouvons nous permettre de nous asseoir sur nos lauriers, et demeurer satisfaits de ce que nous avons accompli au cours des récentes années. Nous devons continuer nos efforts pour nous assurer que les services sont augmentés dans les régions où existe une population francophone importante, et où un vrai besoin existe.

I believe that the speech from the throne represents a continuation of the responsible approach taken to provide the people of Ontario with good, effective government. I would also point out to the members of the Liberal Party that the next time they visit my riding, I will gladly take them around and show them some of the accomplishments that have evolved since I was first elected to the Legislature.

Since I first arrived here in 1967, I have always regarded my responsibility to my constituents as my foremost concern. As members of this House, we all share a common commitment to improving the quality of life and the wellbeing of our constituents. We all share, for instance, a common concern for the elderly within our communities. In Prescott and Russell, we have approximately 6,500 senior citizens. Since my first election to this House, I have endeavoured to improve the level of service available to them and, with the support of my colleagues in cabinet, I believe that we have improved the level of service within the united counties of Prescott and Russell very much.

Last year, we opened a new facility for the elderly in Hawkesbury, and this government provided more than $2,000,000 towards the construction costs. We have also assisted in establishing the Centre d’Accueil Roger Seguin in Clarence Creek, which provides some 110 beds for the elderly.

I would also point out that Prescott and Russell enjoys a bed rate per 1,000 senior citizens that is 13.3 per cent higher than the provincial average for nursing home beds. This is not a bad record for a nice little guy -- which is the manner in which I was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) when he was in my riding. This is not a bad record for a nice little guy who is supposed to be a problem.

Since 1967, a consistent effort has been made to assist small municipalities to improve their water and sewage systems. I could point to many examples of this throughout my riding. Casselman and St. Isidore de Prescott are only a few of the municipalities being assisted by this government to improve the quality of their water and sewage treatment facilities. For instance, there is a $7,000,000 sewage and water treatment project under construction in Rockland.

As another example, I had the pleasure of participating in the opening of the Casselman water treatment and distribution system last summer. This project consists of a 350,000-gallon elevated water storage tank and approximately 22,700 feet of water main. A grant was provided by the Ontario government to assist in the construction costs. This grant was in excess of $1,600,000. This government also provided 75 per cent, or $1,700,000, to assist the village of Casselman with its water pollution control facilities.

I could go on and mention many other projects. Most of the small communities in my riding now have water projects and sewage projects under construction or being looked at. In doing so, we are effectively meeting the needs of the people of Ontario.

Another program that has greatly assisted the residents of eastern Ontario, as well as most other parts of the province, has been the Ontario Home Renewal Program. Since 1974, more than 20,000 residents have been assisted by this program. In my own riding, many people have been able to improve their homes, upgrade their heating, insulation and plumbing. Last year, well over $250,000 was provided to municipalities in Prescott and Russell to be allocated to those who qualified under this program.

Since 1967, since I was elected to this House, we have made considerable progress in improving our roads throughout the united counties of Prescott and Russell. In the united counties, for instance, 83.3 per cent of our county roads have been paved or resurfaced since 1969. Only 52 miles of road remain as gravel roads.

Mr. Wildman: We’ve got highways in my riding like that.

Mr. Belanger: This is only one example of the improvements that have been made to the transportation system throughout the united counties.

The proposed extension of the Queensway east to Orleans will greatly assist the flow of traffic through this area for all those commuting in from Cumberland, from Rockland, from Plantagenet or Alfred.

Mr. Wildman: What about bridges?

Mr. Belanger: This year, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications will provide municipalities in my riding with $6,100,000 in grants to assist in the funding of both capital construction and repair work on those roads which fall under municipal rather than county jurisdiction.

Since I was first elected, some 20 new industries have recognized the great potential that exists in Prescott and Russell and have established in communities throughout the riding. Several of these were assisted by the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation which, in the past year and a half, has provided about $1,300,000 in loans. I had the pleasure of supporting these applications for assistance and their success will mean many new jobs in our area.

I mention these points not because I am interested in praise or because I want the credit for having accomplished these things.

Mr. Wildman: Don’t worry, we like you.

Mr. Belanger: I believe that these things come about as a result of the process of good government and effective representation. This is the reason I am standing here in support today of the speech from the throne.

I recognize that there are many challenges facing the people of Ontario and I don’t underestimate the magnitude of these challenges. I do believe the speech from the throne does provide us with a realistic and workable approach to the many challenges that lie before us in the economic and social spheres.

I look forward to seeing these transformed into policies and programs that are truly reflective of the needs of the people of Ontario. In doing so, we will continue to provide the people of Ontario with the type of good, responsive government that this government has always provided.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to have participated in the debate on the speech from the throne.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Viva Belanger.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate, but before launching my brief remarks I would like to pay tribute to the Speaker for his continuing effort to conduct the business of this House in a very fair but most firm manner. I hope, sir, that you will convey my thoughts to the Speaker.

I would like to commend the former speaker, the member for Prescott and Russell, for the speech he made. I haven’t had much occasion to hear him in this Legislature, not that he hasn’t spoken before on many matters, but it may have been the case that I just wasn’t present to hear him. He did have some very thought-provoking remarks.

I only wish I had the time -- and I don’t because my whip is cracking down on us saying that we have to end our remarks in a period of about 20 minutes so the rest of the speakers can contribute to the debate -- to comment on the milk industry in Ontario.

Mr. Worton: I will make an exception. Take another five minutes.

Mr. Riddell: Suffice it to say at this time that the Tory government has been in power for something like 35 years and surely the Tory government has had some role to play in the establishment of the marketing boards, including the milk marketing board. Certainly, the Milk Act was enacted by this government so if anyone is to blame for some of the inadequacies in the milk marketing system in Ontario, I would think the present government has to share some of the blame.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That’s right. You’re right. Ottawa.

Mr. Riddell: After listening to the member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry and also the member for Prescott and Russell, I am somewhat alarmed that they are placing much of the blame for the closing down of cheese factories and some other inadequacies in the milk marketing system on the marketing board.

[4:30]

I would like to spend an hour to talk about marketing boards and the tremendous impact they have had on the agricultural industry, the beneficial effects they’ve had and the benefits the farmers have derived from these marketing boards. I’m getting a little sick of listening to people condemning marketing boards for high food prices. I trust that indirectly this is maybe what the member for Prescott and Russell was getting at.

Mr. Gaunt: This government is always looking for excuses; always looking for a scapegoat.

Mr. Riddell: I’ll have more to say about marketing boards when I get into the Agriculture estimates. For the time being I want to comment briefly on the foreign ownership of land in Ontario, farm machinery legislation, mention a little bit about farm incomes and input prices, then I am going to end up with a very great concern that exists in my riding at the present time, and that’s the present proposal of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) to reduce hospital beds across Ontario.

Getting to my first topic, foreign ownership of land, I, like the former speaker, do not get up in question period for no other purpose than to get public exposure. I feed very little material back home, but when I have something to say in this Legislature I say it with all the sincerity that I can put into any questions or any comments that I make.

Back last session I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I asked him if he was aware of the great concern that has been expressed over recent purchases of blocks of agricultural land throughout Ontario, and more particularly in such counties as Bruce, Huron, Kent and Lambton, by foreign interests. I asked the minister if he could tell us how widespread this practice was.

He gets up and he talks about how many of these people are now farming the land and how it’s been good for our own farmers because this land now is available to the young people to be able to rent and this way they can get started farming. That’s all right if these foreigners are coming over and competing with our farmers by buying and actually farming the land. But that is not what is happening. What appears to be a new flurry of Ontario land purchases by non-Canadians has sparked intense concern among some farmers and certainly county federations of agriculture.

This time the purchases seem to be concentrated, as I’ve already indicated, in southwestern Ontario. However, this has been a continuous concern for at least five years, with periods of more intense buying activity from time to time.

Few farmers feel comfortable in arguing that non-nationals should be prohibited absolutely from owning Canadian real estate or farm land. What causes worry is that large amounts of foreign investments, frequently concentrated in sizeable blocks of holdings, raise questions about future control of Canadian resources and communities.

I happened to be travelling with a colleague of mine this morning, coming up from a meeting we attended last night, and he tells me that he heard rumours to the effect that German money was coming into his part of the riding to purchase blocks of land consisting of 1,000 acres. There were two main sources of German money that were trying to procure this land.

This isn’t a case of where the German people are coming over here to farm the land, to compete with our own farmers; it’s a case of their money coming over. It’s understandable why it’s coming over; they feel that Canada is a safe place in which to invest. When I hear those anti-Trudeau, anti-federal Liberal people get up and spell doom and gloom for this country I have to wonder what they’re talking about, when we see Japanese money, German money, Belgian money and Italian money all coming over. Where? No place but in Canada. Why? Because they feel Canada is a safe place in which to invest.

Where is all the doom and gloom? I hope this message gets out to the people prior to the election coming up on May 22, because I have to ask the question, “What country, my friend, would you sooner live in at the present time?”

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The buck is cheap, that’s why it comes. Our buck is so low. It’s because our dollar is so low, you know that Jack. They wouldn’t come here if our buck was 100 cents to the dollar.

Mr. Gaunt: Joe Clark the doomsayer.

Mr. McKessock: Switch to French now, Jack.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: A Canadian Liberal or an Ontario Liberal.

Mr. Gaunt: By the time the next election comes along it will be banned here.

Mr. Riddell: I mentioned this purchasing of sizeable blocks of land raises questions about future control of Canadian resources and communities. Let me tell you that if Rene Levesque’s direction for Quebec is a threat to national unity, I would say the second greatest threat is --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Trudeau.

Mr. Riddell: -- the foreign investment into our resources and into our industries and into our businesses. I think we’ve got to, somehow, bring a stop to some of this. It’s not only affecting our resources, the control of our resources --

Ms. Gigantes: What do you suggest?

Mr. Riddell: -- but is also having an effect, and will continue to have an effect, on our communities.

Mr. Ruston: Joe doesn’t like Bill.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Joe is looking for him right now.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Huron-Middlesex has the floor.

Mr. Lawlor: I do not follow you. A few minutes ago you were welcoming all these Japanese and German moneys. Now you’re saying you don’t.

Mr. Riddell: No, I don’t think I ever said we welcomed it. I indicated these people feel there is a future in Canada --

Hon. Mr. Baetz: You’ve got different speechwriters there, Jack. Get your speechwriters together.

Mr. Riddell: -- that’s why they’re investing their money, but I think we have to be very careful allowing this to continue because we’re going to lose our resources. There is no longer going to be Canadian resources.

Mr. Wildman: What you want to prove is there’s no future in Canada.

Mr. Riddell: We’re certainly going to be losing our communities. Enough nonresident foreign ownership in any one area can affect the whole social structure of a community. In other words, I can see the farm houses and the farm buildings just being left to deteriorate. I can see a decreased population for usage of schools and hospitals.

Mr. Watson: That might solve our problem.

Mr. Riddell: There will no longer be the buying support for the local businesses and there certainly will be a lack of support for a project such as some of these new community arenas that have been established ever since the Wintario grants came into being.

Mr. Haggerty: Or Minaki Lodge, for example; you could buy that.

Mr. Riddell: Naturally, such purchases by outsiders push up land prices for local farmers wishing to buy. Local residents simply cannot compete with foreign capital under the present economic circumstances. The devalued dollar and lowered interest rates offered in other countries put Ontario buyers at a distinct disadvantage