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

March 28, 1974

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L013 - Thu 28 Mar 1974 / Jeu 28 mar 1974

OIL PRICES

BUDGET DATE

OIL PRICES

DENTURE THERAPISTS

COST-SHARING PROGRAMME RE MENTALLY RETARDED

INCORPORATION APPLICATIONS BY US BOOK PUBLISHERS

URANIUM AND ASSOCIATED NUCLEAR FUELS POLICY

COST OF DENTAL CARE

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE

MAPLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

KINGSTON TOWNSHIP SERVICES

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT AT HOSPITALS

OPERATION OF TRAVEL AGENCIES

REFUSAL FOR CARDIOVASCULAR UNIT IN WINDSOR

QUETICO PARK

KINGSTON TOWNSHIP SERVICES

FARM PRODUCTS GRADES AND SALES ACT

AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT

THIRD READING

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

ROYAL ASSENT

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

OIL PRICES

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers of the other nine provinces in Ottawa on the price of crude oil in Canada. As the hon. members know, a new price had to be decided upon by April 1 to replace the $4 a barrel price which had been in effect since September last.

In order to avoid what I would consider a serious confrontation throughout this country at a very critical point in its history, some consensus simply had to be reached yesterday. This was impressed upon me very deeply as I participated yesterday afternoon. In the final analysis, I felt that the only reasonable course of action for a Premier of Ontario was to modify his initial position to accept a somewhat higher price than I would have preferred, bearing in mind the inflationary effects of any increase.

I believe that the agreement finally arrived at recognizes to a considerable degree the very different interests of the different regions of the country and will be to the benefit of Canada as a whole. For that reason, perhaps rather than reasons of eventual price determination, I am not unhappy with the results. The consensus arrived at provides for a wellhead price of oil of $6.50 a barrel, effective on April 1 and lasting for at least 12 and possibly 15 months. Prior to the end of this initial period the price will be reviewed and may be then continued, raised or lowered.

The price will be uniform across Canada, but subject to an equitable transportation cost differential. The federal government will continue to levy an export tax on the difference between this domestic price and that price which our oil commands on the Chicago market. The proceeds of this tax will almost entirely be used to bring down the price of oil for eastern consumers, 800,000 of whom are in eastern Ontario, who now depend on imported oil.

Any federal revenues not needed for this cushion, as it has been described, will be applied by the federal government to equalization payments to the “have-not” provinces, which will be increased by a rough estimate by some 10 per cent. The proceeds of the price increase for domestic oil will be divided between the producing provinces and the oil companies as determined by the producing provinces.

This agreed price is somewhat higher than the price advocated by the Ontario government, but is much lower than that originally sought by the producing provinces. After all, $6.50 is some $4 less than the current world price and some $2 less than the average American price. The effect of the agreement will probably result in an increase of approximately seven cents a gallon for gasoline and heating oil, and an increase of somewhat more than one percentage point on the consumer price index.

The exact timing of retail price increases to Ontario consumers has not been determined, but we could fully expect the federal government and the industry will be able to maintain existing prices until present stocks are exhausted.

In spite of this cost which will have to be paid by consumers in Ontario, I am convinced that we have preserved for Canadians the benefits of this country’s vast energy resources.

The increased price will permit rapid development of new energy resources; the lower-than-world price will maintain a competitive advantage for Canadian industry; consumers in the eastern provinces will be protected from the high cost of imported oil, the western provinces will have a base on which to diversify their economic development, Canadians will have a stable oil price for at least a year while the rest of the world faces uncertainty, and Canada will be spared a potentially divisive constitutional confrontation.

I would hope that our efforts since January to come to grips with a national oil policy will prove to have paved the way for the next steps, which must include arrangements for natural gas, and a more permanent federal-provincial mechanism that will make unnecessary the crisis bargaining of the last few days. In this regard, we will continue to work together with the federal government and our sister provinces.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, I think yesterday was a reasonable solution for this province and for Canada.

BUDGET DATE

Hon. John White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the budget will be brought down Tuesday, April 9.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Good for the Treasurer!

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): What time?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Why did the Treasurer have to change the date?

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

OIL PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I’d like to ask the Premier for some further information on yesterday’s important conference.

Is the figure of approximately $100 million, which will be Ontario’s share of the so-called cushion, going to be allocated entirely to that area of eastern Ontario directly concerned, or could it possibly be government policy to use that fund or some additional fund, perhaps something from the gas tax fund, to assist in equalizing the price in the northern part of the province, which is not included in the geographic division but certainly is an area suffering from seriously inflating gas prices?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the intent is to provide a cushion, as we have begun to use the term, for consumers in the eastern part of Canada, and that includes the 800,000 in eastern Ontario, who even today are paying something higher than the price in the rest of Ontario, including northern Ontario.

The whole policy, Mr. Speaker, is to have a degree of equality, exclusive of transportation costs, for all of Canada. The funds that will be made available from the export tax by the federal government will be used to offset the differential that has existed for a period of time. It would be very horrendous, I think, if this were not the policy for the 800,000 people in eastern Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since I am sure the Premier would agree that even with the unnatural dislocating pricing effects in the eastern part of Ontario, which are going to be compensated for by this cushion, would he not agree that the prices in the north are already higher than those paid in the east and that we should have some provincial programme to provide that sort of a cushion for the good of our citizens living in that part of the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very commendable objective, to the extent that it is practical and equitable, to have equalization of prices within Ontario. This government has been endeavouring to come to grips with it. We have done it, as I recall, with beer --

Mr. Deans: It is not a necessity -- not yet anyway.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): You’re kidding!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, some say it’s almost a necessity.

Mr. Deans: It may almost be in the Premier’s house, but in mine it isn’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) has been endeavouring to do this with respect to some commodities in the northeastern corridor.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The question of being able to have, shall we say, the same price for other commodities in the north or in other sections of the Province of Ontario, of course, is of interest to the government. But I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, as it relates to the moneys that will be coming from the export tax, they are to be allocated for the consumers who at present are in the eastern area, and I guess that line will tend to disappear because of the now uniform price. That is the intent of the cushion allowance.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth, I believe, should have a supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: I would like to ask, is the answer then that the government is not going to do anything for northern Ontario? And, secondly, what kind of mechanism does the government intend to set up to make sure that no price gouging takes place in Ontario as a result of such things as heating cost increases, which will be passed on by landlords to tenants right across the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Wentworth likes to use the term “gouging” whenever he possibly can --

Mr. Deans: Only when it is appropriate.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It makes headlines.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the hon. member that this government does a great deal for the north, will continue to do so and has a far greater interest than have --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Try to convince the people of northern Ontario of that!

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I think it is fair to state, Mr. Speaker, that we have demonstrated this rather conclusively, and certainly the contents of the Throne Speech have been welcomed as a very real recognition of what we are prepared to do, even by some of our critics in the north.

Interjections by hon, members.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary pertaining to the Premier’s statement. I realize the meeting in Ottawa was in private. Can he tell the House whether, on behalf of Ontario, he indicated some concern that under the federal policy an additional $1.5 billion is going to accrue to the treasury of Alberta on the basis of the present circumstances, even though it is going to be shared with the producers on the basis of provincial decision? Is he of the impression that this sort of an allocation of funds is going to be dislocating now, and will be increasingly dislocating?

Did he suggest .that we in Ontario were prepared to leave the jurisdiction of uranium resources at the federal level if, in fact, the advantages to the, let’s say, specially-inflated prices of oil were going to accrue to all of Canada rather than just one provincial jurisdiction?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): A great question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, of course, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has once again not totally appreciated what has happened, or the mathematics of it. The last person to say that the Province of Alberta and the Province of Saskatchewan are not going to do well out of this would be myself. But to say that all of these funds are accruing to the two producing provinces for their resource is just categorically incorrect.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Of course not -- who said it? Did I? I did not!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, the Leader of the Opposition did.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I did not --

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it has to be recognized --

Mr. R. F, Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I expressed specifically when I saw the statement that obviously -- and you’ve got to do this -- the funds would be allocated by the Province of Alberta to its own direct consolidated revenue fund or to the producers, as it saw fit. And surely, Mr. Speaker, it is well understood that a half of the budget of that province is going to be met from these extraordinary sources.

Mr. Roy: Right. Did the Premier understand the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker -- and I know the Leader of the Opposition would like us to be fair -I would like to point out --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that while Alberta will receive substantially increased revenues, the total amount of the export tax, which comes from provincial revenues, the provincial resource, all of that tax and it’s in the hundreds of millions of dollars -- is going to cushion many thousands of Canadians in the Maritime provinces, the Province of Quebec, and 800,000 citizens of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s the export tax.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, the export tax is on a provincial resource; and I think it is fair to state that a couple of provincial premiers would like to see the export tax funds going to their provinces. That has not happened. The federal government says, “This is ours; we are going to use it.” And the fact remains that as of April 1, hundreds of millions of dollars flowing -- literally flowing -- from a provincial resource will be used to equalize oil prices right across the country.

And I think, Mr. Speaker, this is something that the Province of Ontario advocated some many months ago, and which I think is one of the significant steps forward that this country has made in the past several years. To me it is a fairly basic and a fairly important principle, and I give the Prime Minister of Canada some credit.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about the uranium? What about the uranium situation?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier has a commitment in connection with uranium. It’s the same thing as far as uranium.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, referring to the answer the Premier gave to a supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary question?

Mr. Foulds: It is a supplementary to the main question.

Mr. Speaker: All right, proceed to ask the question.

Mr. Foulds: Has the Premier, in effect, said that he and his government are powerless to equalize prices of oil, gas and other commodities in northwestern Ontario -- that 58 per cent of the land mass in the province that lies west of Sault Ste. Marie, which was not mentioned in the Throne Speech and which he has not mentioned today?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not said this government is powerless. This government is not powerless. And I have not said --

Mr. Foulds: Why hasn’t the Premier done anything?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Just gutless, that’s all.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Look who is talking, the island resident.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that we will not be making an attempt to see if we can’t rationalize certain things in the northwest as well as the northeast.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: There have been five. I will permit one last supplementary. The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that fuel oil is going to increase somewhere in the vicinity of 15 per cent and gasoline about 10 to 12 per cent, I wonder if the Premier could tell us if the government of Ontario has any plans at all to enable those people on fixed incomes and on low incomes- pensioners, welfare recipients and so on -- to be able to cope with yet another phenomenal increase to their cost of living? Is the government going to do anything about helping those people to carry on in face of what is going to be for them a shocking increase for absolute basics?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government is very cognizant of the inflationary- pressures on people on fixed incomes or low incomes, and if the hon. member for Downsview will be patient -- as I know he is used to being -- the Treasurer has indicated that his budget will be forthcoming and that of course is when the financial programmes of this government will be stated to the hon. members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Leader of the Opposition further questions?

DENTURE THERAPISTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he can dispel some of the uncertainty about the status of the denturists. Is it true that in fact he has decided to reverse the government position and is supported in that by his cabinet colleagues but somehow can’t get the support of the backbench members of his party? If that is true he can look to us for support.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that a reasonable member like the Leader of the Opposition would support almost anything that I brought forward. However --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: On the same day that he said he likes Trudeau, Trudeau said he liked him.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can assure the member that I tried to make my position relatively clear in the fact that I was giving this a great deal of consideration as a new minister, that there were a number of options open to me, if in fact any changes were required at all, that either I should make a change in the near future or I should not, depending upon the conclusion which I may reach.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Did he swear that oath to answer like this before he went into the Cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have not yet reached that conclusion, but I hope to very shortly.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Change if necessary, but not necessarily.

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

COST-SHARING PROGRAMME RE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services if it is true that the ministry will be implementing a so-called cost-sharing plan for residents of psychiatric institutions, under which the parents of the children in institutions such as Cedar Springs will be required to pay a part of the cost that has so far been met completely from public funds?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to send to the hon. Leader of the Opposition another copy of my remarks on second reading of that bill, where I indicated that no decision has been reached and that there are ongoing discussions with the parents and with the local associations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: May I assure the minister that I followed the debate very carefully on that bill because it had very far-reaching significance. Can the hon. minister assure the House that it is not going to be a part of government policy that the parents of retarded children are going to have to pay directly the costs, or even a part of the costs, of the care and education of these young people?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what I said, that no decision has been reached, that everything is being done in full --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): He hasn’t even considered it.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Sit down and listen.

Everything is being done in full consultation with the parents of the retarded and with the local associations and there will be no decision reached in this area for several months.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister undertake to tell the House what possible rationale would lead him to say that he is even contemplating such a programme?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to make available to the hon. Leader of the Opposition a resolution that was passed by the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and sent to the local associations, whereby they are in agreement with --

Mr. Reid: They are not in agreement.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: They are in agreement that we do consider assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan, with the provision that the money that would be received would be used for enriching and expanding our facilities and our services to the mentally handicapped.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

INCORPORATION APPLICATIONS BY US BOOK PUBLISHERS

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. In view of the statement of the commission on book publishing that additional Ontario-based publishing enterprises owned or controlled by nonresidents should no longer be permitted in Ontario without prior approval, and in view of the government’s seeming reluctance to move in this field, will the Premier order that there be an inquiry into the proposition that Houghton, Mifflin, a US based company, has applied for incorporation in Ontario to establish a publishing firm, and that Allyn and Bacon is in the process of doing similarly?

This is not in keeping with either the intent of the recommendation or the stated intent of the government at the time the recommendations were released.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am relatively familiar with the contents of that particular report. I can only say to the hon. member that we will be taking a look at both of those applications. I think we have made it abundantly clear that, certainly to the extent it is practical, this government is very committed to the concept of the publishing industry being Canadian, and I think we have demonstrated this rather conclusively.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: What process is there whereby anyone attempting to set up a publishing firm in Ontario must make application to the government in any event? What process is there that guarantees the government would even be made aware that it was going to be set up until after it’s set up?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume, not being involved with the legal field any more, that if they are going to do it by way of a new corporation, they will have to get approval. If they were, in fact, purchasing an existing publishing house, of course, there would be certain approvals required, if not ours, certainly of the federal government. I think we are going to be familiar with it and are in a position to deal with it.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member for Port Arthur a supplementary?

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister aware that Houghton, Mifflin has, in fact, applied’ for incorporation in Ontario? What response has the government formulated in reply to the letter sent to the Premier on March 25 by the Independent Publishers Association?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t checked the records of application but I am aware it has made application.

Mr. Foulds: What response is he going to make?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will tell the member when we decide.

Mr. Foulds: When another firm --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

URANIUM AND ASSOCIATED NUCLEAR FUELS POLICY

Mr. Deans: With regard to Tuesday’s policy statement on uranium I would like to ask the Premier whether, instead of relaxing the degree of foreign ownership that currently is involved in the uranium field in Canada, the Province of Ontario might consider taking up the 10 per cent which is currently permitted to be sold to foreign investors, for the purposes of exercising some degree of control over the use of uranium and the future of uranium as a valuable energy source in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I thought this would be abundantly clear to the member for Wentworth; the control as to its use is now very much there. That is not the problem.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River with a supplementary.

Mr. Reid: The Premier’s remarks seemed to indicate that it was a problem of exploration and development; would he consider a consortium, perhaps such as along the lines of Panarctic, with the involvement of the Ontario government and the involvement of Canadian mining firms to carry out the exploration and development of uranium in Ontario?

Mr. Foulds: Heaven forbid.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Save us from that one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that’s one of the things already under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Does the Premier feel --

Mr. Reid: Why doesn’t he at least do away with --

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Does the Premier feel, with regard to the discussions he left in Ottawa yesterday, that it’s time we got out from under the private developer in the field of energy and in the field of fuel oil, and that we in the Province of Ontario attempt for the first time to exercise some degree of control so the taxpayers’ money isn’t funnelled through the government into the pockets of major corporations owned almost wholly in the US?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the basic discussion yesterday did not refer to that whatsoever.

Mr. Deans: No, it didn’t refer to it but that’s what happens.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It referred to the price that was to be paid to the producing provinces.

Mr. Deans: And it is going back to the producing pockets of the country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Those producing provinces make their own determination. I gather the member for Wentworth is saying that because of their great philosophical association the Province of Saskatchewan will use all the funds in the provincial process. I would doubt it. He may even find some of them going to the private sector. It may come as a great shock to him but they just may.

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

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, would the Premier clarify for me, in connection with his statement made two days ago, the following words: “We are not, however, convinced that equity requirements with respect to the ownership of uranium mines and the granting of exploration permits should be significantly different from those that apply to oil, gas and coal.” Does the Minister of Energy concur and does that sentence mean what it says?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it depends to a certain extent on how one reads it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: He couldn’t claim to be misquoted because it’s all here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Was the Premier smiling when he said that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Minister of Energy, in discussions with the press both the same day and subsequently, has clarified it --

Mr. Singer: Has clarified what the Premier really meant to say.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- so that the members will understand specifically.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon Mr. Davis: So that there will be no confusion, if the hon member for Sarnia would like to ask the Minister of Energy specifically as to his statement, which I think is in the neighbourhood of 51 per cent Canadian ownership, he would be delighted to answer.

Mr. Singer: The Premier should not make these statements. He should let the Minister of Energy make them for him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, he would be delighted to do so.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, would the Minister of Energy assist the Premier --

An hon. member: No!

Mr. Bullbrook: -- in understanding what that sentence means, and conveying to the House what it means?

Mr. Singer: Yes, what it really means.

An hon. member: Out of order.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, if there’s anyone in this House who doesn’t need assistance, it’s the Premier of this province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: I withdraw the question. Let the Premier answer it. He says the Premier doesn’t need any help.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Well, the question has been withdrawn. The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the --

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: All right, a supplementary. The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary? The question was withdrawn. Supplementary to a withdrawn question.

Mr. Singer: Better get a new statement writer like the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I wrote it. That’s the problem.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): He admits it.

Mr. Burr: Does the Premier feel at ease with the fact that in promoting further exploration and mining of uranium, he is condemning to premature and painful death many of those unfortunate men who will have to do the mining of that uranium?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course we’re concerned about the position of miners in any capacity --

Mr. Martel: When did that start?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I think it is fair to state that we are interested-and I make it abundantly clear, and that was the real purpose of the statement on Tuesday -- in having further exploration and development of the uranium resource of this province. We happen to regard it as being one of the major potential energy sources in not only Ontario, but Canada and, the rest of the world. Quite frankly, we think that the rules should be altered so there can be greater encouragement so that we can have this resource utilized for the broad general public.

Mr. Burr: As a supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth. There have been a reasonable number of supplementaries now. The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Laughren: They’re received no answer.

Mr. Speaker: There have been a reasonable number of supplementaries.

COST OF DENTAL CARE

Mr. Deans: Good questions, no answers.

Mr. Speaker, I have one question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the superintendent of insurance still in his department?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes.

Mr. Deans: Will the minister --

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s a supplementary.

Mr. Deans: -- request that the superintendent of insurance investigate the policies currently in operation with regard to dental care with a number of major companies, such as Dofasco and Steel Co. of Canada, to determine the basis upon which the fee

schedule was arrived at, and to find out why dentists are charging more to patients who are insured than they charge for similar services to patients who are uninsured?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I will make that inquiry to the superintendent.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Wentworth have further questions? The hon. Minister of Health has the answer to a question asked previously.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: Let’s hope he has.

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on March 8 the hon. member for High Park asked me a question concerning the availability of well-female examinations and our policy on it. There was an OHIP bulletin that went out.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have it here.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It’s number 4008, Aug. 11, 1972. It said, as the member knows, that well-female examinations, as such, are not a benefit and should be treated and accepted as office visits. If Pap smears, etc., are necessary, charges should be as specified in the OMA fee schedule.

This simply means that if, in the physician’s judgement, a Pap smear should be done, it will be paid for by OHIP. The previously designated well-female examination, the OMA felt, was an anomaly, as it is exactly the same as any other check of a patient presently without symptoms. There has been no change in OHIP policy relating to payment for Pap smears or for frequency of this test. In fact, our staff have indicated that there are probably more being claimed now than ever before.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister recall the pronouncement made by his second predecessor back, when he brought in this so-called well-female examination every six months which he said would be a great step forward? Does he also recall the statement made by OHIP at the time that they cancelled this, that in future it would be paid for only once a year instead of every six months, unless there was a medical reason for it? Is he not aware that this is an abandonment of the preventive medicine aspect of that?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate my statement that we are doing these as frequently as we ever did. We have not changed the time limits on them.

Mr. Shulman: I have one other supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister elaborate on who the physicians are to whom he referred in the House the other day, who do not believe in the value of the Pap smear?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think the member simply needs to do a bit of the research that he’s so good at by looking through the papers.

An hon. member: Pap is back.

Mr. Shulman: Does the minister know of any better way?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General has the answer to a question asked previously.

MAPLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) directed a question to me concerning a caution that had been registered under

section 48 of the Land Titles Act with the master of titles at North Bay in respect to all unpatented land in the 110 townships in the district of Nipissing. This matter was brought to the attention of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and we have commenced studies in order to have a very careful evaluation of the historical facts and indeed the legal content of the claim upon which the cautions are based.

As the hon. members will appreciate, this will involve a fairly thorough review of the files of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs concerning the Bear Island Foundation. We will be conducting a study of all the relevant constitutional law relating to native rights and treaties in Canada. This would be ail the information which I could provide to the hon. member at this time.

Mr. A. J. Renwick (Riverdale): By way of a supplementary, would the minister be good enough to table a copy of the caution in the House so that we could have a look at it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the Attorney General going to hire special counsel or is this investigation going to be done within his department?

An hon. member: At overtime costs?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The investigation to which I refer will be conducted within the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing also has the answer to a question asked previously, and then the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth asked a supplementary question concerning the status of the OHC holdings in the Saltfleet area and whether or not they could be expedited to be serviced and put on the market within the next two years.

As the hon. member is aware, there has been considerable servicing done in the area in preparation for the start of construction in the first phase of the Saltfleet land assembly and there is currently a tender call out for additional underground services and roads. However, it would be physically and economically impossible to compress the development of the OHC’s 1,600-plus acres, let alone the entire development area, into the two-year period suggested by the hon. member.

Staging of the community has been established in accordance with the official plan for the regional municipality. There are many other bodies, such as the city of Hamilton, the town of Stoney Creek, other local organizations and provincial ministries, which have committed considerable resources to future development on a phased basis.

OHC itself is doing everything possible to accelerate the Saltfleet community consistent with the constraints imposed by other agencies on the rate of growth. Without going into detail on the other agencies’ restrictions, there are a number of them. Some of them are rudimentary and some of them are fundamental. I would add that, in addition to the Saltfleet land, OHC also expects to market something in the order of 800 lots in the city of Hamilton this year.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Isn’t the minister saying two things: One that the plan conforms with the official plan of the region, because there is no official plan of the region yet; and, secondly, that he cannot find either the money or the will to service that land in order to meet the needs of the people of the area to provide low-cost housing?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, I suppose I should have said the draft official plan, as our officials know of it in its present stage. Secondly, no, there is no unwillingness on the part of the ministry or the government. It’s simply a question of physical capacity. The number of acres which are normally developed in the Hamilton-Wentworth area in a year are slightly over 1,000 acres. This would, in fact, add about 150 per cent to that, and it’s physically impossible.

If I might just mention to the hon. member, one of the problems that we ran into was the requirement by the town of Stoney Creek concerning underground transformer vaults. That has been ironed out. But it’s just the type of thing that is time-consuming and one of the kinds of things that I am committed to eradicate in the planning and development process.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary question: What does the minister intend to do by way of compressing the 10- or 12-year time period that has been allocated down to a reasonable number of years in order to ensure that there is going to be housing there, for young people who are coming into the housing market and for those already in the market, at a price they can afford to pay?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the first thing I can do is pledge my ministry to compress the time period the hon. member mentioned, without having a specific goal in mind. Certainly we want to reduce the time for development and construction. There is nothing that I would like better than to be able to reduce that to the two years the hon. member has suggested. I am told, and I am inclined to accept, that it is physically impossible. However, we will do everything possible to expedite it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the minister’s comments that it is physically impossible to accelerate development of those lots, as was suggested by the hon. member for Wentworth, can he assure the House that it will be physically possible to increase the supply of lots by approximately half in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa and some other centres such as in Thunder Bay, as is proposed in the housing action programme for the next two years?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I didn’t say it was physically impossible to accelerate; I said it was impossible to compress it within the two-year time period the hon. member had suggested.

Mr. Deans: I will give the minister an extra six months.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As for announcing our production targets under the housing action programme, discussions are still going on with municipalities and developers. I hope to be in a position to make a specific announcement within a very short period of time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I think there has been a reasonable number of supplementaries on that question.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

KINGSTON TOWNSHIP SERVICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Treasurer, who has been busily walking in and out and conferring with his friends.

Was he the cabinet minister responsible for ordering the Ontario Municipal Board to reopen hearings and further consideration into the provision of water and sewage disposal facilities in Kingston township after the approvals and the hearings had been completed? And was he motivated in doing so by special advice given to him by his colleague, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett)?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, I commend the Leader of the Opposition for asking a question of me while I am here and not while I am out of the city.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Treasurer is very seldom here.

Hon. Mr. White: It is the first time this year he has done that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: It shows a certain enhancement of ethical standards or courage -- I am not sure which.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: If I did sign such instructions to the OMB, I have forgotten about it. I will double-check and see whether or not I did so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the Treasurer aware that the council of Kingston township feels, and with some justification, that the cabinet has unduly and forcefully interfered with any impartiality of the Municipal Board in this regard to the detriment of the taxpayers in Kingston township and for the unwarranted extension of the time required to provide the facilities that the hon. gentlemen have been working on so assiduously?

Hon. Mr. White: No.

Mr. Roy: He is playing politics.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? All right.

Mr. Cassidy: What steps is the province prepared to take to compensate Kingston township for the estimated extra cost of $500,000 to $1 million of building the waterworks in view of the fact that at present tenders expire on March 30 or 31 before the final OMB hearing is ordered by the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. White: I have had an instant memo relating to the question from the Leader of the Opposition, saying I gave no such instructions. The OMB is the responsibility of the Attorney General.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the question was misdirected or was improper or incorrect there can be no supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was very proper.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT AT HOSPITALS

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health.

What progress, if any, has he made in restoring some of the 52 summer student jobs that were cancelled this year at the Northeastern Regional Mental Health Centre as a result of budget constraints?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the member previously. I requested that the budget be reviewed for that hospital and for other hospitals that had similar budget cuts. I am informed that that review is in progress right now and there is a good possibility of the reinstatement of some budgetary moneys to provide summer employment opportunities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

OPERATION OF TRAVEL AGENCIES

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In view of yet another collapse of a travel agency -- Four Seasons Travel Agency I think it is -- is the minister prepared to take any steps to provide licensing, trust funds and control of advance deposits, or to exercise the type of controls that his department presently uses for plumbers, real estate agents, used car dealers, mortgage brokers or people entering into pyramid schemes?

Also, shouldn’t the people of Ontario be entitled to look to this minister for some kind of protection in view of the great series of scandals that has befallen good ordinary citizens who pay their money in advance to take trips, then the money disappears and they don’t even get their trips?

Mr. Roy: And the minister just throws up his hands.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the association of travel agents, a group representing a substantial number of agents in this province, have advised me that they will be submitting a brief within the next three to four weeks in connection with this, pursuant to my invitation last January -- that is January of 1973 -- to look into this particular matter.

May I point out that licensing of travel agents does not resolve the problem. If travel agents make arrangements through chartered Canadian carriers their deposits are insured under the federal legislation dealing with charter trips. It’s when they initiate charter trips with non-ordinary carriers operating in and out of Ontario, or operating in and out of the State of New York, that the difficulty arises. The licensing does not ensure that the person who makes the deposit will automatically have his money refunded.

Mr. Shulman: But bonding does.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Bonding does if the travel agent --

Mr. Singer: Control of trust funds does.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- defaults because of his own theft or the theft of a member of his staff. But bonding does not cover inept operators.

Mr. Deans: That frequently has been the problem.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, if the systems of licensing and controls and testing seem to work for real estate agents, for mortgage brokers and for several other groups of people the ministry supervises, why can’t it put something on the statute books of the province to protect these Ontario citizens who are suffering because there is no government control whatsoever?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The only way, Mr. Speaker, that something like that can arise would be for a substantial compensation fund to be developed by perhaps the travel agents themselves, and this is the very matter to which we have turned our minds. I am not going to see the Province of Ontario allocate several millions of dollars for a compensation fund for this particular segment of industry.

Mr. Singer: I didn’t suggest a compensation fund.

Mr. Deans: Where does the government come into protecting these people?

Mr. Shulman: Why in the world can the minister not put in legislation requiring a combination of bonding and insurance from every travel agent? What’s so difficult about that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: One of the difficulties is in resolving the problem and defining exactly how it would operate. This is the very question I directed to the industry 14 or 15 months ago.

Mr. Singer: What about qualification tests?

Mr. Renwick: No problem at all.

Mr. Shulman: What is so difficult about that?

Mr. Renwick: They do it in every other market.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Shulman: Even do it for lawyers.

Mr. Speaker: Did I hear the word “supplementary”?

All right, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor- Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the --

Mr. Foulds: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Foulds: The previous question was asked by the hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Speaker: Well I’ll call two members of the New Democratic Party next. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

An hon. member: Besides there are very few members --

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order over here.

An hon. member: Proportionately we have --

Mr. Speaker: Order, point of order please.

Mr. Kennedy: The point of order is, I had asked a supplementary but you couldn’t hear it because of the several members over there speaking.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Got to speak up.

Mr. Speaker: Was that a supplementary to the original question asked by the hon. member for Downsview?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes it was.

Mr. Speaker: All right, I’ll permit a supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Just walk down five chairs and talk to him.

Mr. Kennedy: Could I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, with respect to Cardinal Travel Ltd. and the activities of the fraud squad in investigating that, is the investigation complete or is the minister awaiting further detail, or is that phase of it closed?

Mr. Roy: Tell him to mind his own business.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t think the investigation has been completed in its entirety, Mr. Speaker. I was advised by my staff on Monday or Tuesday of this week that I could anticipate further information with reference to this particular agency to which the member refers. When I have that information I’ll make it available to any member of the House who wants it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

REFUSAL FOR CARDIOVASCULAR UNIT IN WINDSOR

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that a committee of concerned citizens in Windsor raised well over $16,000 more than a year ago to purchase a coronary bypass unit, and that unit subsequently had to be returned to the manufacturer because the ministry refused permission for the development of a cardiovascular surgery unit in one of the hospitals?

Mr. Shulman: And quite rightly so.

Mr. B. Newman: Has the minister now reconsidered the decision of the previous Minister of Health and is he prepared to have the cardiovascular surgery unit established in one of the Windsor hospitals --

Mr. Shulman: Sheer waste.

Mr. B. Newman: -- in view of the fact that Windsor residents must now travel to the city of London for such treatment?

Mr. Givens: Now we know the NDP position.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be in Windsor tomorrow --

Mr. Roy: That should help.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- and I am fully aware of the problem that has just been mentioned by the member. There is no justification --

Mr. Roy: Does the minister mean to say he is presenting his bill tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- for the cardiovascular unit being placed in the hospital of Windsor. In fact, in the opinion of a medical team that was set up to determine where in fact such resources should be available, it could be potentially dangerous.

Mr. Roy: I thought he was presenting a bill here.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, yes.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in stating that there are three heart transplant units in the city of Toronto within two miles of one another?

Mr. Shulman: Oh, that is waste too.

Mr. B. Newman: And is there not need for such a unit in the city of Windsor, rather than have Windsor residents travel to the city of London?

Mr. Shulman: No. They should shut down two of the ones in Toronto; that is what they should do.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t want to try to justify three heart transplant units within two miles of each other in the city of Toronto.

Mr. Shulman: Shut them down.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can only say that that is one of the major duties I have as the Minister of Health of this province, to make sure that there is not duplication of facilities, or that in fact costly facilities are not put where they should not be. I will try to do that to the best of my ability with the advice I get from within the ministry.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Health: Would he consider then as part of his health programme paying at least the travel costs, if not the accommodation costs, of one member of the family being able to visit a patient who is undergoing the use of these units in his centralized locations?

Mr. Roy: What does the member for High Park think?

Mr. Shulman: Good idea.

Mr. Deans: He says that is a good idea.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am quite willing to listen to that suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Staying out of bed.

QUETICO PARK

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Has his ministry had any negotiations or conversations with Domtar Ltd. about possible reopening of cutting rights for them in Quetico Park in 10 years’ time?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): I didn’t hear the first part.

Mr. Roy: Forget it. Go on to the next question.

Mr. Foulds: Has the ministry had any conversations or negotiations with Domtar Ltd. about possible reopening of cutting rights for Domtar in Quetico Park in 10 years’ time?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary then, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of a statement by Mr. A. S. Fleming, the vice-president of woodlands for Domtar Ltd., that he made publicly in Thunder Bay, that he is optimistic that such rights will be granted to them in a 10-year period? I think his exact words, for the minister’s information, are: “We may have lost the battle but we shall win the war in Quetico.”

Mr. Roy: Just yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to allow cutting in Quetico Park.

Mr. Roy: Good!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Now or in the future.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

KINGSTON TOWNSHIP SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: What steps is the cabinet prepared to take in view of the fact that two appeals from OMB rulings granted by the cabinet have delayed the acceptance of waterworks tenders in Kingston township past the end of March and will therefore raise the cost of the project by more than a half million dollars?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The member asked that question before.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There’s a switch.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that question was asked earlier in some other form by somebody.

Mr. R. F. Huston (Essex-Kent): He asked that; the same member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say this, Mr. Speaker, that we are obviously concerned with respect to the problems in Kingston township. I met with some of the councillors there some time ago when I was in Kingston. The member from that constituency has expressed his concern as well.

The problem facing the cabinet, of course, in its determination on appeals, is to deal as equitably with these matters as we can. The cabinet made a certain decision; as to what the effect will be and whether there are any solutions for Kingston township I can’t tell the hon. member on this occasion.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like, on behalf of the member from the riding, to welcome to the Legislature the reeve and members of Kingston township council who I understand are in the gallery here this afternoon.

Mr. Cassidy: I am glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, of the Premier: Since he is concerned about this, and very properly, would he not undertake to see that the approvals that had been granted are maintained and kept in force so that the time limits are not going to elapse and the cost will escalate further? Is he not prepared to assume that Kingston township has the proper right to go forward without any further delay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well Mr. Speaker, of course obviously when people wish to make an appeal these things have to be considered. The problem of keeping the question of the approvals open, and I am not totally familiar with the situation, is not the sole issue. The question is tenders have been submitted, and whether one can extend the figures in those tenders is I think another part of the problem. I can only say that we are concerned and we will make an effort to see if we can be helpful.

Mr. Roy: Is the Premier himself concerned?

Mr. Cassidy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier explain why the only citizens’ group in the province to ever win two appeals from cabinet on the same issue is a citizens’ group headed by Prof. James Bennett, brother of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett)?

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Oh, get off that stuff.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Shame.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s true, that’s true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the hon. member any record of the number of appeals and who is successful and who is not.

I hate to confess this to the hon. member, because I know it will come as a great shock to him and I happen to be in the cabinet: I had no idea, first, that Prof. Bennett was head of the organization; and second I had no idea that a Prof. Bennett was a brother of the very distinguished member of the executive council, the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well all right, so I know now but I didn’t know before. I think it is quite improper to phrase a question in that way, quite frankly.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier knows he has been had now because of the favouritism the Tory party plays.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What has the member got against professors?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Does the member think professors are all like that?

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

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: When the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Nuttall) walked into the restaurant, he wouldn’t say hello to him until the Premier --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this afternoon to present to the House two reports of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. The first is the third and final part of their study on the administration of Ontario courts, which was released by my predecessor in January and copies of which were provided to the members of the House. The second is a report on the Solicitors Act.

The third part of the report on the administration of the courts deals with a wide variety of practice-oriented matters relating to the operation of the Master’s office, the rules committee, court interpreters, court reporters, special examiners, pretrial conferences, the role of the legal profession, law reporting and the small claims court.

Like the two preceding volumes which were the subject of a very lengthy statement of government policy to which as Attorney General I am committed, part three will receive careful and considered attention by members of my ministry --

Mr. Singer: Is the government committed to the first two volumes in their entirety?

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- and will be included within the consultative process already underway with members of the judiciary, the profession and the public at large.

As indicated in the Speech from the Throne, we will proceed with the development of a programme of implementation which will result in the establishment of a system of court administration that will accommodate the need for an independent judiciary with an effective administrative structure responsible to the people, to the service of whom it is dedicated.

Mr. Singer: Is it going to be an independent administration?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the report on the Solicitors Act is of a more precise and limited compass.

Up until 1970, the Solicitors Act contained many rules of general application to a number of different aspects of the legal profession with respect to its internal arrangements and its service to the public. In that year, much of the Act’s content was transferred to the Law Society Act, 1970, leaving a rather fragmented version of the Solicitors Act which dealt only with solicitor costs, collection of fees, and methods of review and control of these, and remuneration practices for professional legal services. The Act was recognized as awkward after being divided and the Law Reform Commission undertook the task of revising and up-dating it.

Mr. Singer: Good idea, good idea.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The commission has proposed preservation of the desirable features of the present practice, the modernization of the legislation in line with current legal thought --

Mr. Singer: How about the elimination of the undesirable pieces?

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- and development in case law and the addition of some innovative arrangements which will help to ensure the law maintains an even hand in the financial arrangements between a solicitor and his client.

The report is receiving careful study by officials of my ministry and will, I trust, receive the same from the legal profession and the members of the public. Although this sort of subject matter is sometimes characterized as “lawyers’ law,” it is no less true to say that it is “people’s law” as well. I look forward to a thoughtful public and professional response to this report so that in this area, as in all other areas of law reform, we can ensure that appropriate and timely changes can be made.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a question of clarification, there was one phrase in the minister’s statement I didn’t quite follow. He talked about an independent system for administering the courts. Did he mean that the system was going to be independent of his ministry, or independent of the courts; or independent to what extent?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will simply repeat that sentence. I was referring to the need for an independent judiciary with an effective administrative structure that will be responsible to the people.

Mr. Singer: Does that mean responsible to the minister?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired. We are on reports.

Hon. Mr. Guindon presented the annual report for the Ministry of Labour for the year ended March 31, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

FARM PRODUCTS GRADES AND SALES ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for the licensing under the Act for various persons engaged in dealing in farm produce. It provides for a licence review board under the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and it also provides for a produce arbitration board to arbitrate disputes arising out of contracts entered into in respect to the marketing of farm products.

AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of bill intituled.

An Act to amend the Agricultural Societies Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it has been seldom that I have introduced a bill that I think will provide more interest to the rural communities of Ontario through the agricultural societies than does this amendment. The bill --

Mr. Haggerty: There are not too many left.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, indeed there are; 268 of them to be exact. If the member doesn’t consider that “many” in rural Ontario I think that indicates the lack of interest of his party in rural Ontario.

An hon. member: He doesn’t like the farmers.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Shame, shame.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Among several other amendments to update the Act to modern times, Mr. Speaker, the bill allows our government to provide grants to the local agricultural society to sponsor amateur contests within the orbit of their own agricultural society. We think this is a great opportunity to develop talent among the young people of rural Ontario, and we feel very keenly that this is something that would be of great benefit. The bill also provides for farmstead improvement competitions to be carried out by local agricultural societies. It provides as well substantial grants for the carrying out of light horse shows in connection with agricultural society activities.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Very good.

Mr. W. J. Nuttall (Frontenac-Addington): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to announce the 1974 centennial year of the Ontario Veterinary Association. By the way, this is the oldest association in the Province of Ontario. I would like to introduce in the members’ gallery. Dr. Brian Sorrell, the president of the Ontario Veterinary Association, and his good wife.

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a little history; I don’t get very much opportunity to give a history on the veterinaries in this province. In 1862 the charter of the Ontario Veterinary College was granted with the first classes held in 1864. The first lecture was in the agricultural hall of the University of Toronto on Yonge St.; the anatomical clinics were held in an old shed on Temperance St. As members know, it was moved to Guelph in 1922 because of the inability to get clinical analysts. On May 8, 1964, the University of Guelph incorporated the Ontario Agricultural College and Ontario Veterinary College and other facilities.

I would like to read the Ontario Veterinary Association’s centennial announcement:

“1974 is the centennial year of the Ontario Veterinary Association. Veterinarians across the province have justifiable pride in their association which has, in large part, helped to foster the competence and effectiveness apparent today in so many veterinary disciplines.

“The Ontario Veterinary Association was founded by 27 veterinarians in 1874, and received its provincial charter the same year. The chief aims then as now were to promote the welfare of animal patients and the competence of practitioners.

“Presently 1,400 veterinarians serve Ontario. Each year they must register with their association in order to practice. The Ontario Veterinary Association includes within its membership regulatory employees working in meat inspection and infectious diseases control, research and diagnostic personnel, veterinarians who have made a career in the care and treatment of pets, livestock or wildlife of every description, and others employed as teachers, in industry and in fields of public health.

“All Ontario veterinarians as well as many colleagues throughout Canada and many foreign countries are proud to proclaim centennial year, 1974. They are pleased and humbled to have your recognition of this milestone as a second century is anticipated.”

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 7, The Developmental Services Act, 1974.

Clerk of the House: The second order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to 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.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking for a few moments on. Tuesday evening or afternoon, I was paying tribute to the work that has been done in northern Ontario by this government, and the various programmes for future development in that area -- highways through to James Bay and the possibility of a port on James Bay.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Will that be ready --

Mr. Root: As well as a power line through to James Bay. These are just continuations of the programmes that have been followed, as I said, since the Progressive Conservative Party assumed office. I refer to the many highways that did not exist when I first came into this House. We built a new highway all the way from the Soo around the head of the lakes through to Atikokan, to Fort Frances, into Red Lake, into Manitouwadge, Elliot Lake and Hornepayne, just to mention a few, there are many others.

I think it’s a wonderful record of achievement, what the government has accomplished in that part of the province, and it intends to continue those programmes. I mentioned the norOntair air service which is bringing the province really close together as I know myself. I have left Toronto in the morning, been as far as Sioux Lookout, held a hearing and been back that evening. I’ve been to Red Lake and back the same evening.

And so with better roads, a better air service, Ontario is becoming a compact unit -- and we don’t hear this talk about northern Ontario wanting to set up a separate province.

Mr. Haggerty: Tell us about the condition on Highway 3 from Fort Erie to Windsor.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the suggestion that tourist operators, small business and service industries will benefit from improved loan programmes and financial assistance. This is from the Throne Speech. Operators of small business will receive more help and advice in solving management problems.

I know that everyone will be interested in seeing this programme develop. Our smaller businesses are having difficulty competing with some of the large business and industrial operations. It is my hope that more assistance will be given in the way of more incentives for industries to move out of the large urban areas into the smaller centres and make it possible for people to obtain employment and a good living in these smaller centres, instead of being forced to drive into the heavily congested areas of large cities to find employment.

For a number of reasons I feel these smaller centres should be developed. We know that in the large cities great problems are developing with regard to the movement of traffic, at times air pollution, and the high cost of housing -- to mention but a few. I often think that if we ever had a national emergency, such as a war, it would be a great asset to this province and to this nation if we had our industry and population decentralized as much as practical.

I want to make another suggestion, and that is with regard to the collection of the sales tax. I feel the small businessman should receive a reasonable remuneration for his efforts. I think we all realize that he has to keep accurate records, since we have inspectors going around from time to time to see that the tax is being collected and sent on to the government. The people who do the inspection are paid.

I realize there may be a problem with the large corporations receiving the lion’s share of any payment that might be made, so I would suggest that payment would be considered on a percentage basis with a ceiling on the amount that any one merchant could receive. In that way there would be a full recognition of this important service that these small businessmen are rendering to the province.

I can never understand why the opposition came out against sales tax. Everyone knows that we have to get revenue somewhere. I think if we look at the fact that some 20 million visitors come to the province annually, most of these people are coming from areas where they have sales tax. So that on sales tax we collect a large amount of revenue that does not come from our own people.

An hon. member: Poppycock!

Mr. Root: I suppose the member wants to collect it from our own people.

We collect revenue from the rent of rooms, for meals over $4, liquor revenue, gasoline revenue -- to mention but a few, and there are many other purchases that are made. So I feel that the people who argue that we should not have sales tax are really saying they feel we should collect all of our money from our own people, and then when we leave the province pay sales tax in other areas. To me that is simply ridiculous. Here is a source of revenue, much of which comes from people who are in the habit of paying sales tax and have no objection to paying it. We would not have 20 million visitors in Ontario each year if they objected to our tax.

I was pleased to see in the Throne Speech that legislation will be introduced concerning negotiations between the teaching profession and school boards.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way of resolving disputes that cannot be settled without closing down the schools and turning the children -- the greatest asset this province possesses -- out on the street.

I think we are all concerned about compulsory arbitration. Perhaps some of the teachers and school boards do not like the thought of compulsory arbitration, but at the same time there is compulsory membership in the teachers’ federation.

I think we have to find some way to resolve these differences of opinion in a fair and equitable manner. The taxpayer has put up billions of dollars to support our school system. Last year we voted over $2 billion for the three levels of education, and in addition the local taxpayers paid over $1.2 billion. Having put up that kind of money to build schools, the people having elected boards, the boards having hired staff and teachers, the public will not tolerate having this system closed down because some teachers and some boards cannot reach a satisfactory agreement. There has to be a better way.

When I look at our budget for education -- last year over $2.2 billion -- and I think back to what the budget was when the Conservative Party took over after nine years of Liberal administration, we can be proud of what we have done for education in this province. When I ran in my first election the total budget for everything in the province was around $100 million. Last year we voted over $87 million for the teachers’ pension fund alone, and over $2 billion for the educational programme.

I am sure that everyone will support the suggestion in the Throne Speech that an income support programme be proposed which will assist in achieving a greater measure of security for Ontario’s older citizens and for the disabled. A proposal also will be made for a prescription drug plan for senior citizens.

I am pleased to know that a health education programme will be prepared, providing information on such health hazards as alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, and to encourage better use of our public health care system. I feel that too often we may have been swayed in our judgement by the clamour of opposition members and others asking for more liberalized liquor policies. We may have been swayed by the smooth advertising that we see on television and in the press. I can only say that that advertising does not conform with what I have in my files when I am trying to help solve the problems that are created by the extensive use of alcoholic beverages.

The Ontario Safety League released information in February this year pointing out that alcohol is involved in approximately 50 per cent of the fatal automobile accidents in Canada. It plays a role in causing other types of accidents -- in the home, skiing, snowmobiling, boating, and so forth. These mishaps bring the total accidental death toll in Canada to some 12,000 each year and injuries to more than four million, leading to an estimated economic loss of $2 billion.

During the discussion of the estimates at the last session I raised the question of the cost of alcohol problems to the health system or programme. The Addiction Research Foundation provided certain information, estimating that the expenditures attributable to alcoholism, about the normal expectancy, were calculated at $89 million in the public hospital system. In the psychiatric hospital system the figure was $16.8 million. Studies among social agencies have calculated, expenditures at $8.5 million attributable to alcohol in the welfare programme under the Family Benefits Act.

Under the children’s aid programme, expenditures attributable to alcoholism were $11 million. Some $8.6 million was given to the Addiction Research Foundation.

In other words, an expenditure of some $134 million in the fields that I have mentioned is attributable to alcohol. I think that we should realize that the above costs do not include such items as physicians’ fees, municipal welfare payments, traffic accidents and deaths associated with alcohol use, loss of productivity and manpower in business and industry, jail and correctional institution costs, and a number of other indices that should be calculated to arrive at a reasonable approximation of the total costs.

The Research Foundation confirms the figures of the Ontario Safety League that approximately 50 per cent of deaths through traffic accidents are associated with the use of alcohol. It also points out that approximately six per cent of the employee force of a number of major industries is alcoholics, and the death rate of alcoholics is approximately double that of the normal population.

I put these figures in the record to indicate that health and social costs to our population should be weighed very carefully when matters of policy in regard to alcoholic beverages are being considered. I think that we all realize that alcohol, tobacco and drugs do create a health problem. I can understand when some groups, and I could refer to the Mennonite people, wonder why they are forced into a common insurance scheme to finance the programmes that have accelerated costs because of the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. This affects not only our health insurance costs; it also affects automobile insurance premiums.

I am sure that everyone will want to support the government in any steps that are taken to make the public aware of the problems and costs that are associated with these matters. I noticed in the Toronto Star on Tuesday, March 19, that teen car deaths have doubled since the drinking age was lowered.

I was quite interested in the suggestion that the Ministry of Correctional Services is endeavouring to have a private business operate the packing plant at the correctional centre at Guelph. I made a lot of effort to have that new packing plant established as a training institution for inmates and as another market for farmers in the area. I will be greatly interested to see how this experiment works out. It seems to me that if we can provide a training for the people who serve time in these centres and fit them to go out and take their place in life, it will be a worthwhile experiment, and no doubt can be carried through into other phases of the correctional institutions programme.

I note that we will be asked to consider provision for mandatory use of automobile seatbelts.

I served on the select committee on highway safety, and at that time it was pointed out that in certain types of accidents, particularly head-on collisions, seatbelts could save lives. But at the same time, in another type of accident where a car is hit broadside and turned over, a seatbelt could be the cause of a fatality. I would suggest that very careful consideration should be given to the suggestion that it be mandatory to use seatbelts. I have had people come to me and say: “If I had had a seatbelt on in the accident, I could have been killed.”

I am pleased to note that we will be asked to approve legislation which will require an environmental assessment of major new development projects. I have always favoured public hearings to inform the public what is in mind and to get their reaction before final decisions are made on these major projects.

During the years that I have served on the Ontario Water Resources Commission and the Environmental Hearing Board, I have sat on over 350 public hearings from one end of this province to the other; and I have found that at the public hearing the applicant is more conscious of his responsibility’ if he has to face the public and explain what he has in mind.

In the main the public want information regarding the project that is the subject of the hearing before a decision is made. Most reasonable people accept sound projects if they at least have a chance to express their views and have the project explained.

Mr. Speaker, to establish a corridor from Bradley junction to the Pickering-Nanticoke line, Hydro held three series of meetings to get the reaction of local people. However, the meeting opened up to include an area from part way across Waterloo county, over Wellington county and over most of the county of Dufferin.

These meetings were held in the first place to get the environmental impact of lines running through the area. The first series of meetings was to get the environmental impact on the whole area, regardless of where the lines might go. The second series was held on the basis of the input of the first series and showed possible corridors. Now, in the third series, they have come out with a pretty definite proposal as to where the power should go through.

I have attended six of these meetings and have watched the reaction of people. In the main, the farm people are reasonable people. Until they had some idea where the lines might go, they had little to say. But on the other hand the environmentalists, who are not particularly interested in the production of food but are more interested in maintaining the ecology, the wildlife, the recreational areas, were quite vocal.

I think that this had some effect on Hydro’s second series of meetings, when they came back with a number of suggestions on possible corridors. When the farm people began to realize that these corridors in many areas were going over good agricultural land, they began to become more vocal.

An engineer in my home township of Erin, Mr. John Schneider, who had given a lot of thought to how best to get the connecting links built, made a suggestion that they bring all the power down in one corridor to join the Nanticoke-Pickering line at Highway 401 and go through the gap adjoining Highway 401.

Hydro objected this suggestion, indicating they did not want all their lines together in case of storm or sabotage, or perhaps an airplane crash, which could really disrupt the whole system. They said they would like to have two lines. A suggestion was made that one line might cross the escarpment at Limehouse instead of bringing all of the power through west of Guelph.

Mr. Schneider made another proposal, that they take the power across from Bradley junction to Essa and bring it down to the Pickering-Nanticoke line on an existing corridor that goes north from Woodbridge and Kleinburg. Apparently at the present time there is space in this corridor for the line. This proposal would have widened the gap between the two lines and provided the protection that Hydro wanted.

Mr. Speaker, you will find the reference to the Bruce to Essa proposal on page 54 of the Solandt commission report. It was argued that the use of this route would greatly increase the security of the power transmission from Bruce to Toronto load centre, and it would make it reasonable to concentrate the rest of the Bruce power and the power from Nanticoke in one corridor parallel to Highway 401.

Solandt goes on to say that this proposal received considerable popular support at the hearings. As far as the commission knows there was no one in the area affected by the Bruce to Essa line at the meeting, so it was unlikely there would have been any opposition expressed. Ontario Hydro looked at the proposal very carefully and discussed the pros and cons in presentation and cross-examination before the commission. They say Ontario had repeatedly expressed its opposition to system R on both security and aesthetic grounds.

During the cross-examination they did agree that the proposal -- this is the Bruce to Essa proposal -- would improve the security system for the short-term future, but felt that the Bruce to Essa proposal had no other advantages. Hon. members can read the comments regarding the Bruce to Essa proposal on pages 54 and 55 of the Solandt report.

I am interested in the last paragraph on page 55, where Dr. Solandt says: “Following the close of the commission hearings, the group submitted a final paper on their proposal. Further studies of the proposals convinced me that it would not be easy to find a socially and environmentally acceptable route for the Bruce to Essa line, because it might have to traverse some of the most popular scenic and recreational terrain in southern Ontario. Since Ontario Hydro presented convincing evidence that the Bruce to Essa line would not produce useful improvement in the transmission system, the commission concludes that no further consideration should be given to the Bruce to Essa line.”

Mr. Speaker, that comment really disturbed me. The opposition to the line was because it would traverse some of the most popular scenic and recreational terrain in southern Ontario. I think it is time that the government and Hydro realized that the production of food and good agricultural land are just as important, or in my opinion more important, than preserving popular scenic and recreational terrain in southern Ontario.

On pages 26 and 27, Mr. Speaker, you will read Dr. Solandt’s comments regarding the Limehouse crossing. Keep in mind that to reach Limehouse the power line will have to come over some of the finest agricultural land in Wellington and Dufferin counties. Indeed in the southern part of this line, as you come in to my home township of Erin and go on through into Halton Hills, you will find very scenic recreation areas that will either have to be affected, or the lines in my cases go across class 1 and 2 farm land.

You will note on page 27 where Dr. Solandt says all available alternatives were carefully considered before the commission reluctantly came to the conclusion that on balance this was the route that the transmission line should take. That statement indicates to me that Dr. Solandt had some doubts that on balance the Limehouse crossing was the right crossing. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, before any final decision is made regarding where the second line will go that very careful thought be given with regard to priorities.

This province has an abundance of recreational areas. It has a limited amount of choice agricultural land. In, my opinion to put the preference on the scenic and recreational areas above choice agricultural land is a wrong decision. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that a very careful analysis be made of the impact of bringing a line from the Bradley junction to Limehouse as one of the proposed routes in Wellington and Dufferin counties, funnelling them to the scenic township of Erin to cross the border into the Halton Hills to approach the Limehouse crossing to join the Nanticoke-Pickering Line.

I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that the farm people of Wellington county are greatly concerned. The various lines that may lead into Erin township cross practically every municipality in the area that I have the honour to represent. I would be remiss in my duties if I did not say the government had better take another look at crossing over on low-grade agricultural land and coming down on the Essa-Kleinburg corridor which we are advised has space for another line.

I know that Hydro feel that sometime in the future they may want that space, but with advancing technology and the possibility of underground lines in the future, surely we don’t have to criss-cross over choice agricultural land when there are other alternatives available.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be fair and say that the farm people appreciate what Hydro has done in the way of rural electrification. Hydro has completely changed the rural way of life. One of the reasons that I ran in my first election was that after nine years of Liberal administration we were still farming with the same lamps and lanterns that our parents and grandfathers had used. In Dufferin 81 per cent of the farmers had no power, and 75 per cent in Wellington.

All of that has been changed and we appreciate that. We know it is in the interests of everyone to have this grid system established.

Since we are producing power by nuclear energy, from fossil fuels and from hydraulic power there has to be the ability to move power back and forth, but we are not happy to see the lines go over choice agricultural land if there are any reasonable alternatives. I realize that Hydro is in a difficult spot, having to conduct its own public hearings; and I can see the advantage of having an environmental assessment board looking at these projects instead of asking Hydro itself to hold the hearings.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the explorers of Hydro corridors and other matters affecting the farm people in Ontario will receive very careful consideration in the Natural resources policy field. I would hope the people of Ontario will realize they are going to have to pay more attention to the people who work seven days a week producing the food they consume, or they will find that fewer and fewer people will stay on the farm.

Six years ago, in 1968, members will find in Hansard certain comments I made regarding agriculture. At that time the government had come out for a 48-hour week and an eight-hour day, and the opposition tried to suggest it should be a 40-hour week. I said I was surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon), supporting this idea because, I said, we had never developed cows that would stop milking Friday nights and come back into production on Monday. No way can that be done. Hens persist in laying eggs over the weekend; and if a fanner didn’t look after his livestock and feed them he would have the Humane Society breathing down his neck.

The hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), who was then leader of the NDP, ridiculed me and said: “Just try that horse-and-buggy Tory policy in the next election and we’ll see what happens.” I want to say to him that I tried it and I had more votes than the candidate for his party, the Liberal Party and an independent had combined. The farm people want to be fair. They don’t mind people expressing their views --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Great stuff.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Root: But they realize that the position taken by the NDP, and at that time supported by the Liberals, would wipe out the family farm and would also wipe out a lot of small businesses. The only way anyone could operate a farm on a 40-hour week would be to have a corporation-type farm with enough labour to stagger the labour force.

I will say this; it is very hard to secure competent labour on a farm today when in many industries there are 40-hour weeks. The farmer has to bid in the same labour pool. And make no mistake about it, young people on the farms today are getting the same education their city cousins receive. Because of the advanced policies of this government, we have open roads 12 months of the year, we have large, fine new schools and buses to deliver the children to the schools.

Now if the NDP members think they are going to get the farm vote with their policies, I think they will be badly disillusioned. However, these policies could create a very serious situation as far as the production of food is concerned. Young people are not going to invest the kind of money necessary to establish a viable farm operation and buy the expensive equipment needed to operate it since labour costs have got so high -- and the cost of money is very high. So the young people are leaving the farm.

In my own area I see farms being picked up by people from the cities -- some of them wealthy -- but the production of food is going down and the cost of food to the consumer is going up. I suggest that unless there is a change in these policies or greatly added incentives are given to the farmers, this whole situation will be aggravated.

I understand the average dairy farmer today is about 58 years old. He can’t find young people to take over the operation so he sells off his herd, sells his farm and goes out of production. The same is happening in my own area with regard to beef farmers, hog breeders and so on.

Many of the farms which two years ago were turning out herds of fat cattle today are growing grass, and some of them growing weeds. They are owned by people who are hoping to see development in the area, by people who are in some form of activity other than the production of food.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) for the many forward-looking programmes he has presented to the Legislature -- including capital grants to help farmers become more efficient; paying half the farm taxes to get the cost of education off land, which will be a great help to legitimate farmers; and the legislation that lets a parent make a $50,000 once-in-a-lifetime gift to make it possible for a son to carry on the farming operation. These are some of the programmes making it possible for some of our young people to stay on the farm.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, a very serious situation is gradually developing. It was brought home to many of our people in recent months when we saw the cost of meats go up, as well as milk and potatoes. These products used to be produced all around me, and today the same farms are not in production.

The government, and by all means the federal government which controls our international trade, must pay more attention to the welfare of the agricultural industry or the consumer is going to find the pension he thought he could live on will not buy the food he needs.

At the present time we are not producing enough butter to butter our bread; the price of milk goes up as well, and so it goes. We haven’t seen the end of this unless some more positive measures are taken to protect good agricultural land and to encourage young people to stay on the farm.

I am pleased to know that the government is taking a look at the framework of a revised Planning Act. I hope in the proposed changes they will not lose sight of the fact that many farmers could be on a sounder financial basis if they were able to secure a severance for points of land on the farm that are not fit for agriculture. In recent weeks I have had several farmers come to me and say: “If I could just get a severance and sell that point of land that I can’t farm I could get my financing in better shape and continue to farm.” Some of these men have said: “Since I can’t get a severance, I’m going to sell the farm and quit.”

I would say the same about subdivisions in villages and towns, and I would commend the Ministry of the Environment for its programme to help finance needed services. I would hope the subdivisions plans would not be held up, but these smaller towns and villages would be allowed to grow to a point where they could economically supply water and adequately treat wastes. To keep these towns and villages too small creates a situation where they can’t attract the needed services, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers, and small industry.

I am concerned about the size of some of our cities. We are building these cities, in many cases, on some of the best farm land in Canada. They are getting so large we are creating traffic problems, pollution problems and housing problems. But people have to live somewhere, so I would hope that we would make it possible for people to establish their homes in other parts of the province if they would like to live there; and perhaps give incentives to move certain types of industry out of the large centres. Restricting development in some areas plays into the hands of a developer in the unrestricted area.

I think the old law of competition, supply and demand, would solve some of the problems that are not being solved under the present Planning Act.

I think it is a good move to get the planning and subdivision controls back to the local municipalities. I am hopeful this will help resolve the problems and congestion in the large centres, allow these villages and towns to become viable units; and perhaps let some of the farmers get on a sounder financial basis by separating and selling, for estate-type homes, points of land on the farm that will never be farmed.

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the suggestion of a home renewal programme, with grants to homeowners and municipalities for preserving and up-grading the quality of existing housing in rural as well as in urban areas. Many of the fine old homes that were built a century or more ago can be rehabilitated and used. In fact the home my grandfather built in 1865 is where I still live. The bricks were made across the road on the Awrey farm. The Awreys pioneered in my part of Erin township, put a dam on a stream, operated a mill, opened a brickyard and made the brick for five or six houses in the same area.

I am sure that as time goes on we will learn a lesson from the European countries where the older buildings are now a major tourist attraction. So I would say that wherever possible, buildings that are sound and can be renewed should be renewed, rather than knocking them down and putting up some of the newer buildings, which because of the high cost of living and material do not have the same type of material and workmanship in their construction.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked longer than I originally intended, but still I have many more things I would like to say. Perhaps at some time in the future I will put my thoughts on record.

I want to thank you, sir, and the members, for the opportunity of making a few remarks.

Mr. Speaker: I understand by agreement of the House the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside, who adjourned the debate on the previous day, will complete his remarks at this time.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you realize, of course, most of the remarks I made on Monday and the ones I am going to make today are addressed primarily to the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) although, of course, he wasn’t present and isn’t present now. He is the one I must convince. Although I gave a somewhat similar speech during the debate on the establishing of the Ministry of Energy back on June 14 last year, the new Minister of Energy failed to get my message from what I was saying at that time.

I summed up my remarks on that occasion with these words: “There are two points I am trying to make. The first is that the nuclear fission system is a controversial, hazardous one and in any event uses an exhaustible source of fuel. The other is that it is unnecessary to resort to nuclear fission because there are so many kinds of power that can be developed and, with a little expenditure on technology, these could be brought into use on a wide scale in a relatively short time.”

This seemed to me to be a fairly clear statement that I wanted nothing to do with nuclear fission. Although the minister was present on that occasion and even made some unusually humble remarks to the effect that he was not qualified to debate the subject with me, nevertheless a month later he concluded a letter to me by saying, and I quote: “As you have said, I believe, nuclear generation must fit into the system in a balanced way.” Mr. Speaker, I have never said such a thing.

Until I became aware in the last couple of years that there were alternatives -- alternative feasible sources of energy; far better alternatives in fact -- I had become reconciled, reluctantly of course, to living with more and more nuclear power. But now that I know that many reliable scientists have assured us of the feasibility of the other sources of energy, I cannot remain silent on this subject. I am sure that my reaction is a normal human reaction: Tolerate what cannot be changed but try to change what cannot be tolerated.

Someone has asked me whether I am expressing official NDP policy. At the federal NDP convention in July, 1973, there was a lengthy discussion out of which a three-page policy statement on energy emerged. Included was the following: “There are serious unresolved problems in nuclear energy production. We believe that the federal government must undertake extensive research into, first, various types of reactors; second, methods of disposal of nuclear wastes; third, thermal pollution, and fourth, radiation hazards.”

Mr. Speaker, as long as we have any nuclear power plants in operation I agree with this position wholeheartedly. But I go further and say: Now that it is no longer necessary, forget the whole thing; phase it out. Under the topic of energy research, the federal NDP convention recommended that the federal government should undertake the chief research role in the energy field, and I quote: “We need research in areas such as, first, new sources of energy including solar, geothermal and tidal power. We should seek sources which are least harmful to people and the environment.” What better description of solar power or wind power could one want than that, Mr. Speaker?

Just a month ago, on Feb. 27, the Montreal Star interviewed Sir George Porter, a British 1967 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. He warned of the perils of going nuclear and said that the sun’s rays could be harnessed to meet man’s needs for power. He was not worried so much about the clandestine making of atomic bombs by unauthorized persons as he was by sabotage of a nuclear plant by the use of a simple conventional bomb. I quote him: “Ordinary nuclear reactors have more than enough plutonium in them to poison countless people.

What really worries me is the possibility of sabotage and the fact that the world is as anarchic as it is. We now have more sabotage and terrorism in the world than we have ever had in the past.” Sir George Porter said that if one-tenth of one per cent of the effort in manpower and money already devoted to the development of nuclear power had been allocated for solar energy research, the energy problem would have been solved by now.

An award-winning series of articles began in the Windsor Star of June 25, 1973, entitled, “Nuclear Power: A Blessing or Eventual Curse?” I don’t know whether the Windsor Star or their writer, Brian Vallee, took any bow for this

article but I should like to extend my belated congratulations to them both.

This is an objectively written article, presenting as one can tell from the title, both sides of the controversy. I quote:

“When you talk about peaceful uses of the atom, such as power plants, the argument becomes more subtle because there are seemingly intelligent well-meaning people on both sides of the nuclear argument.

“On the one side, you have people in industry and government, hailing nuclear power as the only means of rolling back the impending energy crisis and as a boon to a cleaner environment.

“On the other hand, you have responsible ecologists, scientists and people like consumer advocate Ralph Nader, deploring proliferation of nuclear power plants.”

Later, the

article says: “But Dr. Fred Knelman, a prominent nuclear critic, whose department at Montreal’s Sir George Williams University studies the social consequences of technology, says that serious accidents at nuclear power plants are inevitable.

“Dr. Knelman says the Pickering plant is reasonably safe compared to other industrial installations, with one basic exception: ‘The risk involved in an accident is totally out of proportion with the risk in any other kind of plant.’

“He says that a United States Senate committee has estimated that if an airplane hit a nuclear power plant roughly the size of Pickering, or if there were some other major accident which caused radioactive material to be spewed out over a residential area, the cost would be [according to this Senate committee] $5 billion as well as hundreds or even thousands of lives.”

I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that the accident estimates that have been made by the authorities are based on the assumption that nuclear plants are at least 30 miles from metropolitan areas, which accounts for the rather low estimate of immediate fatalities.

The Windsor Star

article reported that Dr. Knelman said the United States is having serious problems in two of its plants in the United States itself and in a third built by the Americans in Switzerland. I quote: “The cylindrical materials that hold the fuel have cracked and they don’t really know why. This is terribly serious because they are getting a direct leak of hot fuel.

“Dr. Knelman said there had also been a continuous series of accidents at the large atomic dump where all the waste materials from all the United States nuclear plants are sent. The dump is located in Hanford, Wash., on the Columbia River.

“’The accidents have involved the escape of hot radioactive materials, and the Columbia River is now the most radioactive body of water in the world.’

“Dr. Knelman referred with shock to what he termed ‘the bland statement’ of Dr. Alvin Weinberg, and AEC research director, who ‘hopes that science will have solved the problem of disposal of long-life radioactive waste by the year 2020,’ at which time he expects one nuclear plant to come into operation each day, somewhere in the world.

“’Dr. Weinberg is a technological euphoric who believes that technology will solve all the problems it creates. It’s what I call the theology of technology. It’s pure faith. It has not worked in the past and why he expects it to work in the future, I don’t understand.’

“The Atomic Energy Commission has been forced by independent scientists to eat its own pronouncements so often that I think it must suffer from verbal indigestion.”

Dr. Knelman also said that when strontium 90 was first mentioned, the Atomic Energy Commission said there was no hazard involved at all, unless a person accidentally swallowed a bone splinter which would be highly unlikely. They didn’t acknowledge at all the biological route that strontium takes. When it lands on grazing grass and cows eat it, it gets into milk and then into children.

The chairman of Ontario Hydro made a public statement in the early part of 1973, defending Hydro’s promotional advertising policy. One of his arguments was that if Hydro stopped advertising there would be an acceleration in the demand for scarce fuels, such as oil and natural gas. Now obviously this does not refer to lighting; therefore, it must refer to heating. What Mr. Gathercole seemed to be saying is that greater use of electricity for heating is a desirable goal. If Ontario Hydro produced all its power from water -- that ever-renewable source of energy -- who could disagree?

But as it is, any further increase in electricity for heating purposes in Ontario uses up power derived from one of the fossil fuels, all of which are unrenewable.

Because electric heating makes use of only 30 per cent of the fossil fuels that produce it -- in other words 70 per cent of the energy is lost in making electricity from fossil fuels -- we are merely using fossil fuels much more inefficiently when we increase our use of electricity made from those fossil fuels for the purpose of home heating.

It is true that greater reserves of coal exist than of oil and gas, but coal is still considered a dirty fuel at the station where it is converted into electricity.

The great fallacy in Mr. Gathercole’s arguments lies, of course, in the fact that he ignores those alternative sources of energy which are all renewable, and in most instances unpolluting. I refer to solar radiation power, wind power, and the use of wood to create electric power; organic methane gas is a fourth source.

On a continental basis there are also geothermal power, sea thermal power and tidal power. All are 100 per cent safe, all are non-polluting and all are renewable. Ontario Hydro ignores these sources. It hands out to visitors at the Pickering nuclear power plant literature published by the Canadian Nuclear Association. It has these opening words: “Question: Is nuclear power necessary? Answer: In fact there is today no alternative if we are to conserve the world’s resources of fuel.” Now if one can swallow this transparent falsehood, one can swallow everything else one is told by the literature handed out by Ontario Hydro and published by the Canadian Nuclear Association.

Nuclear energy itself is a non-renewable source of energy. Nuclear power might conserve other sources of fuel temporarily but it uses up unrenewable uranium in the process.

Ontario Hydro has a public relations division paid to hand out or produce misleading statements of this kind. Apparently carried away by its own rhetoric, which I have just quoted, it repeats the statement by paraphrasing it as follows: “Only by substituting nuclear fuels for fossil fuels can we meet the increasing demand for electricity.” Then it adds: “And not only preserve but enhance our environment.”

There, Mr. Speaker, is a most remarkable flight of imagination -- to avoid using unparliamentary language.

On the contrary, nuclear power is the one source of energy capable of destroying our environment beyond redemption. The other forms of energy, especially solar energy, and including wind energy -- to avoid repeating a whole list -- are 100 per cent safe and 100 per cent perpetually renewable. Yet the public relations division of Ontario Hydro tells us, and I repeat it: “Only by substituting nuclear fuels for fossil fuels can we meet the increasing demand for electricity, and not only preserve but enhance our environment.”

These are falsehoods, Mr. Speaker, that I shall try to expose wherever the occasion presents itself. It matters not that the PR people attribute these words to Dr. G. M. Shrum. They are manifestly false no matter who says them. The PR men then produce a third gem:

“Question: Does nuclear power pollute? Answer: Nuclear power plants do not discharge smoke, sulphur dioxide, or oxide of nitrogen to the atmosphere and there are no unsightly piles of fuel and fuel handling equipment. The plants require less space than a fossil fuel plant and are more architecturally acceptable.”

As far as it goes that statement is accurate. Nuclear power plants do not produce visible air pollution and they are aesthetically more pleasing to the eye, but this is a very narrow

interpretation of pollution. What happens to the spent fuel? What happens to the mountains of uranium tailings at the mine, a byproduct of the process that produces fuel for nuclear power plants? Both before it is used to boil water and afterwards, this fuel is the worst of all possible pollutants.

Nuclear power does pollute. Thermal pollution and radioactive emissions are unavoidable when nuclear fission is in operation. In Par Pond, where the Oak Ridge laboratory dumps some of its low-level wastes, it was found that even when the concentration of cesium 137 was only three-hundredths of a millionth of a millionth of a curie, the flesh of bass caught in the pond contained 1,000 times this amount. Similarly, strontium 90 in the bones of bluegill was 2,000 times the level in the water and radioactive zinc was 8,720 times the level in the water.

In the Columbia River, into which the Hanford nuclear plant discharges, larvae of a certain kind achieve concentrations 350,000 times that of the level in the water. Birds also concentrate radioactivity, and being higher up the food chain they end up with correspondingly higher concentrations.

In the United States there are now 30 million tons of sand-like radioactive uranium tailings usually lying in uncovered heaps being washed and blown by rain and wind into various water systems. In Colorado, the San Miguel River was found to contain 30 times the acceptable level of radiation as the result of uranium tailings washed into its waters.

Uranium miners, at least in the United States, according to a publication “The Atomic Establishment,” have consistently suffered almost three times greater incidence of lung cancer than the rest of the population, although the onset of cancer may be delayed from 10 to 12 years after initial exposure often after the men have retired or turned to other forms of employment. So what price the lives of the Elliot Lake miners?

These then are some of the terrible costs we must pay to use nuclear fission. They cannot be figured in cold cash, but we must take them into consideration.

Let us, to avoid further argument, assume that during the boiling of the water -- out of which comes steam and eventually electricity -- there may be no significant escape of radioactive effluent into the environment. In other words, let’s just assume that the operation of the nuclear plants is harmless to the environment.

We come then to the possibility of a major accident at a nuclear plant. Keep in mind that the nuclear fission promoters plan in the next 30 years 100 new nuclear power plants in Canada -- all the size of the one at Pickering. The Atomic Energy Commission in the United States plants to license about 1,000 large nuclear power plants in the next 30 years, a plan that would produce the radioactive equivalent of one million Hiroshima bombs every year -- plus 600,000 lbs of plutonium 239 annually. Just one pound of plutonium -- which has a half life of 24,360 years -- escaping into the environment and inhaled eventually by human beings, could cause several billion cases of lung cancer.

Is it any wonder that many atomic scientists are appalled by the consequences of unsuccessful containment of radioactivity. Dr. Hannes Alfven, the 1970 Nobel laureate for physics, says: “In a full-scale fission programme, the radioactive waste will soon become so enormous that a total poisoning of our planet is possible”. That is in the bulletin of the Atomic Scientist of September, 1971.

Soon afterwards, in the December, 1971, issue of Nuclear News, the director of the AEC’s Oak Ridge national laboratory, Dr. Alvin Weinberg, said: “Technical deficiencies in a plutonium economy, if unremediable, could mean catastrophe for the human race.” In Science, Feb. 25, 1972, the former director of the AEC’s Argonne National Laboratory, Dr. Albert Crewe, after discussion of the medical foresight, the engineering skill and the administrative controls required by nuclear technology, summarized as follows: “Should any of these three lines of defence fail, then the entire population of the world would be in serious danger”.

Mr. Speaker, we spank little children for playing with matches. What should we do to those human beings who are foisting upon us the unthinkable hazards of nuclear power?

Let us return to the consideration of the possibilities of a major accident at a nuclear plant as described by Gordon Edwards, a mathematician at the University of British Columbia, to whom I am indebted for this and some other sections of my remarks.

He says: “A single, relatively small, 100 megawatt reactor, after one year of operation contains more radioactive cesium, strontium and iodine than all the nuclear weapon tests ever conducted.” “In its famous Brookhaven report of 1957,” he says: “The AEC indicated what the results of a single major accident at a relatively small -reactor 40 miles from a city might be: 3,000 to 4,000 deaths immediately from radiation poisoning; 50,000 deaths later on from radiation-induced injuries; up to 150 square miles of land contaminated -- not to mention contamination of water supplies and evacuation of half a million people.

“The Brookhaven report goes on to say that the probability of such an accident occurring is so low as to be almost inconceivable. This is a most unscientific statement, as the probability of most accidents is so low as to be almost zero.”

Gordon Edwards asked: “How do you compute the probability of an accident? Do you include or do you exclude the possibility of sabotage? Do you include the possibility of war? Do you exclude the possibility of an undeclared war? What would happen if an old-fashioned conventional bomb were dropped on a reactor? Do you include the possibility of an airplane crashing into a reactor? Remember, Pickering is going to be the site of a huge airport as well as the site of the huge reactor. As recently as November, 1972, we witnessed the spectacle of a band of hijackers threatening to crash a plane into a nuclear installation at Oak Ridge.”

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the nuclear installation was evacuated but the hijackers changed their minds for which we should all be very thankful. But it could happen accidentally, too.

“All this does not begin to consider the very real possibility of a large industrial accident occurring within the plant as a result of mechanical and/or human failure. Accidents have occurred at Chalk River, resulting in the release of 10,000 curies of fission products; at the Enrico Fermi plant between Toledo and Detroit leading to a partial meltdown of the core and fears of explosion; and at the Windscale plant in Great Britain which spewed out vast quantities of radioactive debris; and at others.

“In 1970 there was a close call at the huge Hanford reactor and a failure at the Oak Ridge research reactor. The latter involved an almost unbelievable combination of three separate human errors, two installation errors and three design errors.” According to my mathematics, Mr. Speaker, that is really eight human errors.

“There is another danger after the fuel has served its purpose -- the very serious problem of waste disposal. Where this involves transportation to a disposal site, we have the eventual, inevitable railway or highway accident to face. Another problem is that plutonium, the essential ingredient for making atom bombs inexpensively, will almost certainly become a black market item. When one thinks of the possibilities for terrorists and demented persons, this one reason alone should force the abandonment of the entire nuclear programme involving plutonium 239.”

On Oct. 10, 1972, Sen. Mike Gravel, who is leading the call for a nuclear moratorium in the United States, summed up the matter briefly as follows:

“I would point out that nuclear safety involves far more than just the reactors. Necessarily involved are the nuclear fuel reprocessing plants; nuclear waste storage and burial practices; radioactive transport practices; anti-sabotage measures; plutonium processing hazards; routine leakage of radioactive poisons all along the line; plutonium diversion prospects; and the preservation of national security.

“When the radioactive fission products and plutonium are shipped out of the power plants where they are produced, nuclear safety problems spread far and wide. Man cannot get rid of long-lived radioactivity once he has created it. He can move it around but it will always be somewhere. Some of it will have to be kept out of the environment for more than 100,000 years.

“Because humans are fallible, careless and sometimes demented [and he might have added, Mr. Speaker, venal, malicious and stupid] it is unreasonable to assume that we shall achieve a miraculous 99.99 per cent success in the radioactive containment operation, year in and year out. Furthermore it is reckless to count on some special immunity for nuclear facilities when it comes to earthquakes, sabotage or war.”

Because the literature handed out by the Canadian Nuclear Association and the public relations division of Ontario Hydro is prepared by persons skilled in public relations -- which often means in deceiving people or in brainwashing the public -- it is not surprising that the publication handed out in Pickering entitled “Nuclear Power and Our Environment in Canada” should give scarcely a hint of the immense dangers involved.

Consider page 12 where we find: “One Canadian scientist’s reply to the question, ‘Is it safe to develop nuclear power?’ was, ‘Safer than not developing it.’ He meant that if we do not use nuclear energy we will have to use other means to provide power and thus compound our pollution problem.

Perhaps the PR men are not really dishonest; perhaps, in fact probably, they are just ignorant of the several other pollution-free methods of harnessing energy without depleting our unrenewable, polluting, fossil fuel resources. Because of their ignoring the alternative forms of energy, they are preparing the public to support politically the dangerous and irrational policies of the relatively few people who have now become the nuclear establishment. The PR men’s job is to build prestige for the nuclear establishment.

Report No. 3 of Task Force Hydro goes about this task with great vigour, especially in the name-dropping passages from pages 17 to 28. First of all it blithely assumes that nuclear power is the only alternative to fossil fuel, and having killed off all the good guys -- that is by eliminating from its terms of reference the genuinely clean and perpetually renewable forms of energy power, namely, solar, wind, wood, geothermal sea- thermal, tidal and organic methane -- it berates the present obvious air polluting disadvantages of fossil fuel power plants and touts, all-out, the nuclear power plant. In other words, it carries out a mock battle with the other bad guys -- the fossil