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

February 13, 1975

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L183 - Thu 13 Feb 1975 / Jeu 13 fév 1975

BUDGET DEBATE

SUPPLY ACT

SUPPLY ACT

THIRD READINGS

ROYAL ASSENT

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock we called the first order. I believe the member for Cochrane South had the floor.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to enter into this debate. These last three weeks have been rather unusual weeks in the life of the Legislature of this province. I am sure it has interfered with the southern holidays of some of the members, but it has been a southern experience for some of us in northern Ontario in that we have got down to the sunny weather of dear old Toronto and have had a chance to spend three weeks in this place.

I don’t want to take too long tonight because I know that we are beading toward prorogation later in the evening. But there are a few things that I wish to bring to the attention of the members in this House, Mr. Speaker. One has to do with the appointment of a health council for my district. I know that a good deal of work has been done by the health people up there and that names have been submitted to the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller). He assured me before Christmas that he had seen the nominations and that the appointment of this health council was imminent.

Here we are into the middle of February and this council has not yet been appointed. The critical thing is, of course, that a number of major decisions are not being made.

There is a crisis, as far as I am concerned, in regard to chronic care in my area. A lot of people have to go to Sudbury, Cochrane, Kapuskasing or Hearst to get into a nursing home because the nursing home in Timmins is full. There are about 70 patients in the home for the aged in Timmins who in fact are chronic care persons. I believe it was the member for York North (Mr. W. Hodgson) who stated yesterday that he had to drive 40 miles from his home to visit his father and found that quite a hardship. If you are driving a couple of hundred miles or more it means that there are not too many who are able to see people.

The reason the chronic care situation is not decided is that the minister said to the hospital planning council for our district, “We are prepared to accept whatever recommendations you are prepared to bring forth, provided that they are reasonable.” This was a very good move, because the local people could then resolve the matter and come up with a reasonable course of action, and the minister was prepared to co-operate. I appreciated his concern and his efforts on our behalf.

But because there hasn’t been a health council appointed, these hospital bodies will not make a decision. They are waiting, putting it off and putting it off, and nothing is done to deal with this problem and other problems in the health care field. So if what I say tonight has any influence on the Minister of Health, I hope that he will make every effort possible to get that council functioning so that we can deal with our chronic care situation. I think it’s acute; it’s critical.

The member for London North (Mr. Walker), who is the parliamentary assistant, says that we are better off in the district of Cochrane than many because of, I think it is, four beds available per 1,000 population. Yet when we consider the distances I don’t think we are nearly as well off as we should be. Even in Iroquois Falls, the hospital council there is now wanting to get approval for a number of hospital beds.

I was going to say something tonight about the home for the aged situation in the district of Cochrane, but there is a little event taking place on Feb. 24 in the courts there, so I think I’ll wait till after that matter is resolved before I really deal with it in some depth. I have written a letter to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) and didn’t get a reply, and I did write a letter to the person running the home for the aged, Mr. Wiburn, in Timmins, about a complaint that was brought to my attention on Nov. 29. I didn’t get a reply from him.

I now understand he is in another aspect of the work. But we’ll deal with that later on, after that hearing on the 24th. I am sure there will be some very interesting results come out of that court hearing, which will take about a week.

We are interested, in the district of Cochrane, in getting approval through grants, one three hours and right through to Hearst in way and another, for a number of swimming pools in the district. There is a committee being chaired by Michael J. J. Doodey, who is an alderman in Timmins on the Timmins swim pool committee. What they hope to do is to get a consensus in our area to establish an Olympic-size swimming pool in Timmins and to have a 25-metre swim pool with whirl-pool and sauna in areas like Moosonee, Hearst, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls and Black River-Matheson.

Their brief says that these pools would serve as feeders to the large pool in Timmins where combined events can be accommodated, and there would be television coverage of the events and so on. But from the point of view of health and the teaching of young people to swim and develop, these kinds of pools are very much needed, because the average of swimming days in northern Ontario is 12.5 days, 54 per cent of our teenagers can’t swim and ¾ of them want to learn to swim.

Not one northeastern Ontario swimmer, diver or synchronized swimmer is on the Ontario or national team. I could go on and give some other facts, but they will be coming down for assistance through funds that I suppose will be raised from the federal Olympic lottery and, now that we have a provincial lottery, I suppose they will be coming down here. I hope, in conjunction with the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle), that we will be able to get a good deal of co-operation from this government when this project comes about.

Another thing that is very important to us in the northeast is the matter of transportation. I have asked the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) about the possibility of operating a light-reliable-comfortable (LRC) train between Toronto and Hearst. This is a train that has been developed jointly by Montreal Locomotive Works, Dofasco and Alcan and it has been the subject of a good deal of study, including tests in Colorado, I believe. It will go at least 120 miles an hour, perhaps faster.

I believe the action group of northeastern Ontario has made representations about this train to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and perhaps to the Premier (Mr. Davis); I know they met with him in the last month or so. This train would have a great deal of benefit to us in the northeast because, with a little upgrading of the track, a train travelling at 120 miles an hour could get into our part of the province in about four or five hours. It is a very comfortable train and would provide an alternative to air travel because it is almost as fast in many instances, particularly for people along the line.

Now, an election is coming up, and I hope that this will be one of the announcements that the government will make between now and election day --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): They will be making a lot of announcements.

Mr. Ferrier: -- because it will take two years after the decision is made to get that train in operation. I would earnestly request the Premier that he push his planners so that he is able to make that kind of a decision. It’s a good kind of transportation, it’s a well-proven new kind of train and it will be of immeasurable help to all of us, particularly those of us in the area from North Bay up to Hearst.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): And low ceilings don’t stop trains.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Right.

Mr. Ferrier: Another matter I think should have some consideration -- and I know it concerns the francophone community in my riding -- is bilingualism in the civil service. They are not altogether happy with the moves that this government has been making to provide service in their own language in the northeast of the province, particularly where the population is about 45 per cent to 50 per cent French-speaking and they should be able to expect service in a number of the ministries of this government in their own language.

I have been concerned about the community college at South Porcupine. I don’t think there has been much effort made to provide courses in French in that college, which is a big college with lots of room. The students from my area who want to take their courses in French at the community college must go down to Algonquin College in Ottawa. It seems a shame, when there is a college with facilities right at home, that they. have to go down to Ottawa. Great as the city is, not all the good thing come out of Ottawa; they’re not all there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can think of one or two in particular.

Mr. Ferrier: Yes, I could agree with the Premier. Well, not altogether.

Mr. Roy: I’ve heard the Premier isn’t so popular down there himself.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): And he doesn’t even live there.

Mr. Ferrier: I hope the government is looking at my area to see about using either the Porcupine campus or the Kirkland Lake campus, or both, to provide some courses in French. I think the people of those areas warrant that.

Another thing that concerns some of us in our area is that we’d like to see a judicial district set up around Timmins. We’re a large city -- the largest in that part of the province -- and the people who have to go on jury duty have to go up to Cochrane. They may have to drive up-and-back three, or four, or five days. The judge has his seat in Cochrane. He’s in Timmins perhaps one day, and then he’s over to Kapuskasing or Hearst doing the rounds.

Mr. Roy: And they pay him about, what, eight bucks?

Mr. Ferrier: I don’t know. Maybe they pay witnesses that.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): He’s not interested in money.

Mr. Ferrier: But the thing is that lawyers needing to get in touch with the judge sometimes have a good deal of difficulty doing so. Matters must always go up to Cochrane. It’s an inconvenience to the people; it’s an inconvenience to the legal profession; it’s an extra cost on the people; and I think it’s an extra cost on the government.

I don’t want to take anything away from Cochrane. All I want is to see that the people of Timmins get a more convenient service. It might be reversing what took place here a little while ago -- appointing a second judge for the district -- but I think this is a matter that warrants some further study and some real consideration. I know that in the land registry office the same situation prevails -- all the transfers of property must go through Cochrane or Haileybury.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’m going to Timmins next week, and I’m not going to Cochrane. That evens it up.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): That’s not going to help the minister.

Mr. Ferrier: It doesn’t matter where he goes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But it evens it up.

Mr. Ferrier: All the people who pass through don’t always resolve the problem.

Mr. Roy: In fact he’d be better off not going.

Mr. Ferrier: I’d like to get a commitment from the minister then. When he goes up there, let him talk to some of his people and find out how they view the problem.

I think it would save money and it would be much more convenient to the people there if a judge, and even part of the registry office, could be located in Timmins. So, I hope the minister will take that under advisement and ask some questions. If the minister sees some of the real estate people, the legal people, the municipal people, I’m sure that they will have something to say to him about it.

The final thing that I want to say -- and then I think I’ve said enough, we’ll have chances later on in the new session -- I would like to see more attention paid by the Ministry of Natural Resources to the fish and wildlife

section of the ministry. As things now stand it’s sort of the poor cousin. There’s less money designated to that aspect of the work than any other, and the people out in the field are very limited in their budget. The number of conservation officers is restricted and people doing fish and wildlife management are greatly hampered by a lack of budget.

If we’re going to manage our wildlife, which is very important from a tourist point of view and from our people’s recreational point of view, and see that some sound decisions are taken there, that the job is done properly, then I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has got to give a good deal more priority to that part of his ministry and to strengthen it in budget terms and in personnel terms. We will then have that resource of our province managed much more efficiently and in the way that it observes to be managed.

Then the work that should be done, but which in a number of instances cannot be done because of lack of budget or lack of personnel, can be done in the future and enforcement can be carried out.

I hope the minister and his staff will heed these remarks and when they go to Management Board for a little loosening of the purse strings I hope they will give this a priority. I know those of us in the north, I know my friend from Thunder Bay, and even the minister himself recognize the need. I would like to see more attention paid to that and, when we are discussing the estimates, I hope we find that that

section of the Ministry of Natural Resources has been strengthened and we can find a better job done.

With those few remarks I would like to end my presentation on the budget, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House to point out that the volunteer workers from York-Finch Hospital who have been testing for glaucoma all day here are closing off operations at 9 o’clock. If any of the members still wish they can have their eyes tested for glaucoma in the west lobby. I am sure that the House would like to say thank you to these very valuable ladies who have done the job here today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. At the outset I would like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and also wish well to the former Speaker, hoping that his health continues to improve, that he does enjoy the sunny south and that he comes back to the province full of vim, vigour and vitality.

I would be remiss if I didn’t congratulate the two newly elected members, the member for Stormont (Mr. Samis) and also the member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor) on their recent elections.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Where are they?

Mr. B. Newman: Likewise I would like to congratulate those who are promoted to new positions in the ministry, either as ministers or as parliamentary assistants, and --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. Newman: -- so will include many of my good colleagues who were on the select committee on the use of schools.

Mr. Roy: Whether they deserve it or not.

Mr. B. Newman: Apparently any committee that I have been on seems to be the committee from which most of the promotions into the upper echelons take place --

Mr. Roy: The member for Windsor-Walkerville’s the boy!

Mr. B. Newman: And that goes back to the original committee, the select committee on youth, where you yourself -- were you on it, Mr. Speaker? Yes, you yourself were on it, so you can see that as long as I am on a committee, anyone who is in there has a very good chance of a substantial improvement.

Mr. Speaker, the budget speech gives one an opportunity to range over the whole field of finance, political endeavour and so forth. I would like at the outset to make certain recommendations concerning the operation of the House itself.

There seems always to be some criticism as to whether the 45 minutes allocated to the question period have been used up or not. I would strongly suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to buy a clock, a sweep second clock, a substantial one, a good big one with four faces on it, so that the people in the gallery, the two sides of the House, and you yourself can see as that sweep second hand spins around ticking off the 45 minutes that are allocated to the question period. Then there will be no reason for any criticism as to whether you are short-changing us or we are taking advantage.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): And put the control over here. We should have a bell on each minister too; after three minutes it rings.

Mr. B. Newman: Another suggestion I would make, Mr. Speaker, is to take the Hansard operators and put them up in the gallery where they can have a better overview than from where they are located now, having to turn ’way around to see if interjections are coming from some of the members who happen to be sitting in the corners. I think it would be better if they were up in the gallery --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): We want them close by.

Mr. B. Newman: -- and then any interjections made in this House can be picked up from the gallery position.

Mr. Ferrier: They might miss the member’s.

Mr. B. Newman: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the only interjections that should be accepted are those that are accepted by you. When one doesn’t have the floor, is not recognized by you, any remark made by him really should go into Hansard only as, “an interjection”; but the content of the interjection should not be in.

Mr. Ferrier: They might miss us.

Mr. B. Newman: When one reads the federal Hansard one notices the difference between the two.

Mr. Ferrier: Some members would never get in Hansard.

Mr. B. Newman: A lot of the remarks that are thrown across the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, wouldn’t bother the young ladies there. They wouldn’t have to try to find out who made the comment. They would pay attention to what is actually being said and who the individual is who is making the contribution to the various pieces of legislation and/or debates that take place in the House.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The interjections are the best part.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would likewise suggest to you that in the Speaker’s gallery only a certain number of tickets be set aside. That accommodation should be there for practically anyone who wishes to come. They should be able to go downstairs and pick up a ticket, and they shouldn’t have to be allocated a seat.

Mr. Laughren: Who said housing was an issue?

Mr. B. Newman: There is no reason someone should be sitting at the far end when the centre of the gallery is not used at all. It should be on a sort of first come, first served basis. They’re citizens of the province. They pay the taxes. They are entitled to sit in those seats just the same as anyone else. There shouldn’t be any selectivity except for special occasions.

Mr. Good: We’ll change that.

Mr. Roy: That should apply to the press gallery too. There’s nobody up there.

Mr. B. Newman: Another suggestion, Mr. Speaker: I think we should get into the 20th century here and have electronic voting. There’s no reason for us standing up and voting and bowing to you. Not that we don’t like to bow to you; we find it a real pleasure, Mr. Speaker, except that’s an archaic method of operating in the House. If one took into consideration the number of minutes that are wasted in the House through the voting procedures it would probably amount to maybe two or three weeks of a session.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if we had a button on the desk, with sort of a scoreboard up there with our seat numbers; to vote yes we would simply punch the button for the “yes” and it would be recorded; and that could be kept very easily on some type of tape. Other legislatures do this, so there is no reason we in Ontario couldn’t get into the 20th century.

Mr. Stokes: About the only exercise members get now, bobbing up and down.

Mr. B. Newman: I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to make another suggestion on the operation of the House. What happened today when the votes were stacked and the voting took place just before 6 o’clock is a nice way of operating. I think any time we are having any type of a division in the House -- I shouldn’t say any time but most times -- the voting on the division voting could take place at, say 5:45 or 10:15, and everyone would know, including members of the cabinet, that they are going to be required to be in the House at 5:45 or 10:15 and they could adjust their activities accordingly.

There wouldn’t be that waste of time, with whips running around the building attempting to round up members just so the government can look a little more favourable in having won the vote by a substantial number.

Mr. Haggerty: Get the fellows in the back row.

Mr. B. Newman: We know we can’t beat the government because the bells are going to ring; and they’ll ring and they’ll ring up until the time the government has the majority to win the vote. So let’s save time by having the votes always take place about 15 minutes before closing time, on a morning session if we have them; on an afternoon session or an evening session; or if you wish any one of the three sessions during the course of the day in the interest of expediting things.

Mr. Speaker, the next comments I want to make are on the plight of municipalities. The municipalities in the Province of Ontario are extremely hard-pressed for the financial wherewithal to conduct their affairs.

The Premier and his cabinet have travelled the length and breadth of the province listening to briefs from various municipalities, and I would assume that practically every one of the municipalities made essentially the same point; and that was the need for additional financial assistance so they can maintain a decent tax structure, a decent mill rate, and at the same time provide necessary services to the communities. Not all municipalities are extremely well off. Some are extremely hard-pressed financially and, as a result, need that additional assistance.

They do that, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to giving grants in the educational field. Certain areas of the province get a higher grant than do other municipalities in the province. The government has a differential there and I think it should probably likewise have that type of a differential for municipalities. But where municipalities are exactly the same, then the grant structure for both should be exactly the same.

We found that funds have always been provided for the development of regional municipalities and regional governments. The government is penalizing areas that do not have regional government. It is withholding funds or not providing them with funds on the same level and to the extent that it is providing them to the regional governments. It is trying to tell those municipalities either to regionalize or suffer.

That is a blackmail approach. That is not a correct approach. If the municipality wants regional government it can, through its elected representatives and the people, make that decision. The decision really should not be imposed here by this government and, at the same time, it shouldn’t try to force municipalities into regional government by giving to them additional financial inducements to form regional governments.

Needs in non-regionalized areas are probably just as great as they are in regionalized areas. Municipalities are strapped for funds. Inflation treats them very hard and very roughly. They find that not only supplies and services increase in cost, but there are other things that have a substantial effect on the budgets of the area municipalities.

Once a municipality has difficulty in providing services to the area, then one finds that certain types of projects deteriorate to the point where, by the time the municipality can get down to taking care of the project -- for example, road construction rather than road repair -- it becomes a complete reconstruction of roads in some municipalities. That’s by far a more expensive process than simply repairing the road.

Mr. Speaker, in the travels of the cabinet throughout the Province of Ontario, the city of Windsor made a very substantial contribution, in my estimation, to the meetings that were held in London. I would like to put into the record some of the comments from the brief as they were presented to the cabinet.

Large municipalities such as the city of Windsor and the city of London have equal, if not more, responsibilities than some regional governments in the province. The taxpayers are faced with the same increasing costs and their requirements for services are similar to those governed by a two-tier government. The province has seen fit to give substantially more grants to the regional governments and, frankly, there is no justification for this.

The mayor of my community believes that cities such as Windsor with equal responsibilities should receive grants equal to those of regional governments. It appears the basis of the property tax stabilization programme requires changing. There are some obvious inequities that the city of Windsor is a victim of. According to information supplied by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White), where he outlined the review of the 1973 and 1974 tax stabilization programme, the city of London was entitled to $6,936,000 in 1973 and $9,476,000 in 1974,

whereas the city of Windsor was entitled to only $4,985,000 in 1973 and $5,811,000 in 1974. These figures include the per capita grant, and since the city of London has approximately 32,000 people more than Windsor, it would be entitled to an additional $256,000 as a per capita grant,

whereas the differential in the 1974 grants between the two communities is $3.5 million, not $256,000.

We in the city of Windsor don’t begrudge the city of London additional moneys, but we feel that Windsor should be receiving similar unconditional grants. There is something drastically wrong with a formula that would generate such discrepancies in grants to cities with similar size and similar municipal requirements.

The controls that are placed upon expenditures under the property tax stabilization programme do not take into account the unusual and non-recurring expenses that municipalities are faced with. For example, in 1974, Windsor was required to spend approximately $500,000 in nutrient removal costs, such as purchase of chemicals and so forth, and none of these costs is of a capital nature. This was an expenditure which was generated by the requirement of the Ministry of the Environment, and yet these costs are included in determining our expenditure increase of 1974 over 1973 and could result in our receiving a lower grant from the province.

It’s noted, Mr. Speaker, that despite the urging of the Ministry of the Environment to get on with many programmes, the city of Windsor may not be able to do so in 1975. Even if the city is served with an order to proceed with certain public works, compliance may simply not be possible. The thrust of the argument in this submission is one of finance. Municipalities are obliged to raise some of their funds from tax levies which are both regressive and sharply limited. Federal and provincial funds, on the other hand, are derived from a much wider range of sources far better suited to meet expanding costs.

For example, Ontario’s personal income tax revenues have increased at an average rate of 18 per cent over the last five years. In periods of inflation, which we are faced with, when prices and incomes are rising in leaps and bounds, provincial revenues do not increase accordingly without an increase in rates charged to the taxpayers. The municipalities, on the other hand, in order to cope with rising costs of operation must increase property taxes or eliminate essential services.

Mr. Speaker, the province simply must provide the municipalities with more unconditional grants, which will enable the municipalities to keep the tax rate increase to a reasonable level without arbitrarily cutting off basic essential services.

I can also refer to the serious unemployment situation that seems to be emerging in the city of Windsor and which will add to Windsor’s difficulties. Many people could be obliged to give up the struggle to meet home payments swollen by further tax increases. Just think of the plight of those living on fixed incomes, those who are retired, and continually finding that the tax rates keep increasing without any assistance to speak of from the senior governments. Many of these retired people would like to stay in their own homes but are so financially pinched that they have no other choice but to sell and go into the rental market.

Mr. Speaker, the second topic that I would like to bring to your attention is that of unemployment. Probably no area in the province is hit as hard as are the municipalities that are associated with the automobile industry -- the cities of Windsor, Oshawa and St. Catharines and parts of Toronto, in which substantial automotive development and manufacture takes place. These centres are adversely affected by the recent downturn in employment in the automotive field.

I should include Kitchener as one of those cities that has a substantial amount of automobile or parts manufacturing, and it, likewise, tomorrow if not today, will be hard-pressed as a result of the drastic changes that are taking place in the automotive field.

Many of these unemployed persons are having difficult days and they will have more difficult days in the future. Some come along and say “Well, what has the auto worker to worry about? He’s on SUB and unemployment insurance and he is getting 95 per cent of his original pay.” That isn’t true, Mr. Speaker. Some are. Maybe even in some instances many are. But there are also many who don’t qualify for the supplementary unemployment benefits.

There are many who have not worked long enough in the plant, they are recent employees in the plant, and these people, in addition to those who may have been unemployed for quite some time and who have undertaken some substantial financial obligations by way of various types of major purchases, either in appliances or in automobiles or in homes, are extremely hard pressed today.

Those who are not on supplementary unemployment benefits, and also some of those who are collecting only unemployment insurance, are finding their financial plight extremely difficult. It was nice to see that the auto centres in the Province of Ontario -- at the encouragement of the mayor of Oshawa, I think it was, Mr. Potticary -- had banded together in an attempt to convince senior levels of government that they have got to turn their eyes toward the plight of the auto worker and do everything they possibly can to alleviate the position in which not only the worker finds himself but also the municipality finds itself.

The meetings that have taken place as a result of that have come down with some substantial recommendations to senior governments, and I certainly hope the government looks seriously at the plight of the centres I mentioned and attempts to implement some type of work programme. I would look at the vastly expanding housing industry. Practically all of these municipalities are short of housing facilities, and that is one field to which the governments could now turn their eyes. To build substantial amounts of housing in the areas would improve the employment picture in the various communities and the economy of the whole province.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you are aware that approximately one out of six or one out of seven jobs in the Province of Ontario is related, in one fashion or another, to the auto industry. When the auto industry has bad days, then we can rest assured there is a multiplier effect from that difficulty and it spreads throughout the whole economy. We can see what has happened in the United States. Living as I do across from the city of Detroit, we see that in some sections of the city itself the unemployment rate is as high as 25 per cent. Imagine, one out of four people unemployed.

In the city of Detroit itself, I think averaging it out, it comes anywhere between 10 and 12 per cent. I don’t think it was much worse than that even in the days of the Depression.

This government can do something about that, and I, in one of the question periods, asked it to consider the elimination of the seven per cent sales tax. By eliminating this seven per cent sales tax we would sort of encourage our senior government to follow suit. Let Ontario be a leader and then let the federal government follow. The seven per cent tax could be eliminated from vehicles purchased during a given period of time.

I don’t say that we should eliminate for ever the seven per cent sales tax on automobiles. I think the government can set some period of time during which it will not collect the seven per cent sales tax. In this way the federal government, likewise could reduce its sales tax, the 12 per cent sales tax that it has, and between the two we would have roughly a 20 per cent sales tax reduction on automotive vehicles. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we would encourage the purchase of automobiles, and once automobiles sell we will find that the economy moves substantially. Many of us here would consider trading in our cars if the automotive vehicle were 20 per cent cheaper in price than it is today.

At the same time, I think governments can likewise ask industry, especially in the parts manufacturing area associated directly with the auto industry, to give employees substantial discounts if they purchase a vehicle.

This has been tried in the United States. It has worked very successfully in some areas. I would suggest that some of the auto industries or parts suppliers do exactly that same thing in the Province of Ontario.

Likewise, I think the banking industry should come along and, for this given period of time, reduce their lending rates for the purchase of automobiles. It is certainly better for them to be getting six per cent or seven per cent return, or some other per cent return on their money, than nothing whatsoever. If people aren’t going to purchase cars, then their money certainly is not going to be loaned out to those who would like to purchase various types of automobiles.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think the government can reduce or eliminate its sales tax for a given period of time. If they wished to put certain qualifications on it, I wouldn’t argue with that. Once we do it in Ontario, the federal government would have no other recourse but also to reduce or eliminate its sales tax.

If I am not mistaken, Australia reduced the sales tax on its automobiles by 12.5 per cent, just in the last week or so, in an attempt to encourage the sale of automotive vehicles in that great country on the other side of the world.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the elimination of the provincial seven per cent sales tax and the federal government’s 12 per cent sales tax, the province likewise maybe could contribute the licence plate to the vehicle. In other words, reduce the cost to the individual by $40, the purchase price of the licence plate.

All this would stimulate the purchase of automobiles. It would get our economy moving once again. And maybe the members opposite would be able to smile again, once the economy gets moving. Because, as it is now, there is no chance they are going to come back if they call an election.

I notice my good friend, the member for Oshawa, agreed with me.

Mr. McIlveen: I just think the member is a dreamer, but a very nice one.

Mr. B. Newman: So, Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to spur the economy, I have given a series of suggestions to the government that I hope they can follow and get our people in the automotive field back to work and the economy once more on its feet. And the banks could co-operate by the reduction of interest charges on loans made for the purchase of automobiles.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken for almost 20 minutes. I have in all 15 different topics I would like to bring up, but I know I may have an opportunity to bring them up in the Throne debate when we meet again, the good Lord willing. But I still would like to bring a few of the topics to your attention.

I was going to talk about the housing needs in the communities, referring specifically to mine. I am extremely concerned about the housing for senior citizens. We have two classes of senior citizens, and this government has created those two classes.

There is the class of senior citizen who has approximately a $75 a month advantage over the senior citizen who does not live in geared-to-income housing. The government subsidizes those who live in geared-to-income housing, and, God bless them, we are glad to provide this to them and we are glad that these senior citizens have at least a decent place to live. Those that live in geared-to-income housing have their rentals subsidized to the extent of approximately $75 a month.

But think of the other senior citizen who can’t get into geared-to-income housing because there isn’t sufficient geared-to-income housing in the community. An individual goes and lives in an attic, or he lives in a basement, or he lives in the back of a garage, or he lives in a one-room apartment, or he lives in good accommodations. He has to pay the full amount for housing and his housing charges may be anything np to $150 a month.

The individual in geared-to-income pays approximately $50; the one not living in geared-to-income may pay up to $125.

To me, all senior citizens are entitled to the same level of subsistence. We should be subsidizing the rental payments of those who are living in public market accommodation to the extent of approximating their costs and their subsidy to that of those who are living in geared-to-income housing -- and that is approximately $75 a month. The government should pick up $75 of that person’s rent, and the person pays the balance.

You can make that kind of an agreement with hundreds of landlords. You say, “Well, you can’t go to everyone.” What do you mean you can’t go? The government can have its housing authorities in the various municipalities throughout the province go into each of these landlords and make some type of an agreement on a lease basis or any basis it wishes to make, so that that person will pay to the housing authority the same amount of rental that is paid by the senior citizens living in geared-to-income housing, the province picking up the balance of it.

The government has to do that because it has created two classes of senior citizens, one that is lucky and one that is extremely unlucky. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, you have the same as I, I would say in the course of a week at least eight to 10 calls from senior citizens who are begging to get into some type of geared-to-income housing. They are in desperate straits. Inflation has affected them very very seriously.

You’ll come along and say, “Well, they’re now on a GAINS programme, and they’re receiving $230 a month.” That’s true, they may be on the GAINS programme; but not all of them are. You’ll say, “Well, everyone gets $230 a month some way or another.” That likewise may be true, but if one is paying $140 or $150 a month rental he certainly can’t have the same standard of living as the one who is only paying $50 a month rental.

The government has to look at these senior citizens who are not able to get geared-to-income housing and it has to accelerate a rent supplement programme for them.

Mr. Speaker, one topic that I really want to get onto is the concerns of the disabled. Some of the disabled make the following comments, and I’m glad to see the Minister of Community and Social Services is here, because the first comments actually relate to his ministry.

There are blatant discrepancies in provincial and federal legislation affecting our disabled population. Among the most unfair is the difference in provisions for those who are disabled by mental retardation and those who are physically disabled. For example, the parents of mentally retarded children are entitled to receive financial aid in the rearing of their child, but no parallel aid is available to the parents of a crippled child. And that’s not right. They’re both disabled. We should treat them both in the same fashion.

As far as education of the physically disabled goes, for the mentally retarded special provisions exist that allow for the payment of transportation to and from special schools or daycare centres. No such assistance is available to the physically disabled child; therefore the parents must pick up the costly burden of transportation bills in order to ensure their child receives an adequate education.

In certain circumstances, the vocational rehabilitation services sponsor educational upgrading or retraining and in these cases will also cover transportation costs. However, this is usually available only to the young adult or older physically handicapped person as part of the rehabilitation process, and not to the young.

Under housing there are a number of provincial Acts covering housing for the retarded. No similar legislation exists for the benefit of the physically disabled person, either adult or child.

Mr. Speaker, there are other comments that I could make on the physically disabled, but I will reserve them for the next session when I talk in the Throne debate.

As my last topic, I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the concerns of deserted mothers. With this being International Women’s Year, I think it would he fitting that government pay attention to this and do everything it possibly can to remedy the situation.

Living as I do in a border city, the city of Windsor, there are hundreds of women and children whose husbands and fathers have deserted them and fled across the border, making maintenance or alimony payments extremely difficult to collect. The reciprocal agreement, which is only with the states of Michigan and New York, is not strongly enforced. Most women are not in a position to afford the money to take further court action in these two states. Legal aid recipients are only covered for legal expenses incurred in Canada.

The courts on both sides of the border are slow to act, and very often their laxity allows many a spouse to disappear. Immigration laws permit a Canadian citizen to live in the United States on the basis of a temporary working visa, and they are not concerned with the marital status of that person. As a result, many families are forced to live on welfare, becoming a burden to the taxpayers, even though these men are financially able to support their families. I am sure that all border cities and towns have this same problem.

In view of this situation, the group prepared a petition bearing well over 500 names. Their petition has three resolutions for the attention of the various ministries involved. The first resolution deals with maintenance and support payments:

“Whereas the default of maintenance and support payments creates injustice and undue complications and hardship,

be it resolved that in the event of default of maintenance and/or support payments, the onus be on the Minister of Community and Social Services for adequate maintenance and court action under

section 6 of the Deserted Wives’ and Children’s Maintenance Act.”

Their second resolution deals with the tracing of delinquent ex-spouses.

“Whereas one of the major problems of enforcement of support legislation is the case of the obligated spouse leaving the jurisdiction,

be it resolved that the province, in conjunction with the federal government, arrange access to the provincial and federal income tax returns in order to allow the tracing of the delinquent ex-spouse.”

This would be done upon a court order. All information, save the address and employment status, would remain in the confidentiality of the court, but at least the individual could be traced.

Their third resolution deals with reciprocal enforcements.

Those are the three resolutions passed by the group that is meeting this year in connection with International Women’s Year. They have asked that they be drawn to the attention of the government, and especially to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services. We hope that he reads this in Hansard and attempts to resolve the concern of the many people that are involved.

Mr. Speaker, I had originally intended to talk at length on the following two items, but I will keep my comments brief. In the city of Windsor there is a threat that the ambulance dispatch services will be moved from the present hospital and located in another area, a move that probably would involve an expenditure of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Really, it would be a waste of funds when the services are satisfactory where they are.

Similarly, in connection with the plight of the gasoline station operators, we have spoken about that in the House for well over 10 years, and the problem still hasn’t been resolved simply because the government refuses to act.

I had intended to make extensive comments on hockey violence. The only comment I would like to make is that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations should use the same system of penalties as far as the playing of hockey is concerned, as is used in connection with automobile drivers. You accumulate points when you have certain misdemeanours in the driving of an automobile; when you reach a certain number of points, then your licence is cancelled and you have to go through a training procedure and so forth.

The same thing should apply to hockey. If a person accumulates a certain number of penalty points -- and the level would be decided by the hockey officials themselves -- then his licence to play hockey, so to speak, would be suspended until he pays the penalty for his rough or improper behaviour on the ice. In other words I’m asking the government to adopt in the playing of hockey the principle they have set up in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in the driving of a motor vehicle.

I was going to talk to the minister and have him make the wearing of headgear in boxing for amateur boxers compulsory. I’ve been after this minister now for six or seven years, if not longer than that. I have an

article showing the brain damage that is caused by the non-use of the protective headgear for amateurs and I think it’s time this minister banned any type of boxing in the Province of Ontario by amateurs if protective headgear is not being used.

I also recommend that the government not allow commercial fishing in Lake St. Clair, leave that lake devoted solely to sports fishermen and purchase the licences from the commercial fishermen so that they don’t have a total loss in the moneys that they may have invested in fishing gear.

I also have bad numerous complaints concerning the price increases of domestic gas purchased from Union Gas in the Windsor and Essex county area. I think, Mr. Speaker, a minimum bill of $2 whether the person uses gas or not is completely wrong and is discriminatory against the person who uses very little gas. It is especially discriminatory against the senior citizen, because he tries to conserve money all the time and he is being billed for $2 whether be uses gas or not.

In fact, a fellow in my riding by the name of Herbert Gladden sent me a bill and said: “I didn’t use any gas at all. I’ve got to pay a minimum bill of $2. In addition to that, they’re charging me a penalty of five per cent on something I didn’t burn, simply because I’m not going to pay the bill on time.” He didn’t burn any gas and they’re giving him a penalty of five per cent for the non-burning of gas. So what they’re telling him to do is waste energy. It’s cheaper to waste energy than to save energy.

Likewise, I was going to talk on the difficulty retired municipal employees are having because they have no negotiating power when it comes to improving their pension benefits with the municipality. Just as in the auto industry the union fights for financial benefits for their retirees, I think legislation has to be introduced so that the municipal employees -- firemen, policemen, public works employees and so forth -- are able to negotiate with their employers for substantial increases or for increases in pension benefits. If it’s good in the big three in the auto industry, it should likewise be good in the civil service, be it municipal or provincial.

The last comment that I was going to make, Mr. Speaker, was on the lack of proper legislation as far as the Municipal Elections Act is concerned where the election in the city of Windsor was held over two days as the result of a snowstorm, I had been in contact with the Minister of Treasury, Economies and Intergovernmental Affairs. The night before the election I had the city clerk talk to him and it was unfortunate that the election couldn’t be postponed. As a result, I am informed that more than likely the election will have to take place once again, probably in the month of April or May.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to my comments. I hope the government of the day will pay attention to them because, if they don’t, this is their swan song. Thank you.

Mr. Roy: They won’t.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to join with the other members of the Legislature in congratulating the Speaker on his ascension to the throne and to congratulate him, through you, for having done a job of keeping the proceedings of the House within manageable bounds and to congratulate you, the member for York North, for the way that you as Chairman handled the committee of the whole House and hope that you will continue with the fine work for whatever length of time those particular duties continue.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much and I will relate that message on to the Speaker.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you. I think we’re all too prone in this assembly to take on an air of confrontation rather than spending a few moments from time to time to say “thank you” when something worthwhile is done --

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): That’s true.

Mr. Stokes: -- and I think it would be appropriate for me, Mr. Speaker, to address a few brief comments to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) for having taken an active and I think a sincere concern in the plight of one particular community in my riding, namely Armstrong. I’m not going to go on at any great length to detail yet again the problems that they were faced with as a result of the closure of the radar base.

But I think it was largely as a result of my representations to him and his resources policy field that he did undertake to co-ordinate provincial efforts -- that is, all of the ministries concerned with the problems in the Armstrong area -- with the federal government, to at least get things going and give those people a ray of hope for the future.

That has been done. We don’t think that the job is completed by any means, but I’m sure that the people of Armstrong appreciate what has been done thus far. As I say, they do have some hope for the future, and with the groundwork that has already been laid I think it is safe to say that they can look on a much brighter future. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hon. Provincial Secretary for Resources Development for the part that he played in that.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Thanks very much.

Mr. Stokes: I would also like him to pass on thanks to one of the ministers in his field, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, for taking an active interest and concern in some of the issues that I’ve brought to his attention concerning the road conditions in my riding. He has responded in a very positive way to them, particularly on Highway 11 between Beardmore and Geraldton and the conditions on Highway 17 between Ouimet and Marathon, and some of those projects are already under way.

On some of them, the bids have been gathered and work is about to proceed, Most of the other major concerns are already on the drawing board and there is a definite commitment to proceed with them as soon as funds are available. So I wish the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development would pass on my thanks, on behalf of my constituents, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications for his efforts on our behalf.

I have only one major topic, Mr. Speaker, that I want to engage in tonight and it is as a result of a seminar that was held recently in Quetico Centre, where the centre gathered representatives from the mining industry, the forest industry, the tourism industry, the service industries and all of the major communities in northwestern Ontario. They concerned themselves principally with the manpower requirements in northwestern Ontario between now and the year 1980 and how we were going to provide the necessary manpower to take care of the development in the resource sector that is on the drawing board and already under way.

It may not be common knowledge to people in this House, but we’ve got in excess of $2 million worth of development on the drawing board and some of it is in progress. Our primary concern at that seminar was to find out why we were unable to attract a sufficient number of people in order to fill those jobs and projected jobs over the next five years.

We came up with some pretty startling facts, and I think for the benefit of those ministers who are going to be faced with the problem of assisting us in finding our place in the sun, the implementation of and indeed improvement on Design for Development and its implementation, I think that ministers of this government are going to have to be in a position to listen to the problems as we see them and join with us in planning to come to grips with those problems.

As we have known for years in northwestern Ontario and as was confirmed by the Quetico conference, northwestern Ontario continues to suffer from the absence of a manpower policy. All the Design for Development rhetoric is no substitute. Jobs exist and are being created, although probably not enough in the northwest. That isn’t the central problem. In fact, there are a lot of problems and they are fundamental and basic to the area. This is the way the people participating in that seminar saw it.

Communities are unattractive and lacking in adequate housing, roads, shops, hospitals, recreation facilities, sewers and water, etc. So there is little that encourages even northern residents to come to these communities, much less to stay there.

There aren’t enough skilled people in the area nor are there adequate training facilities. It’s kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, when we’ve got jobs going begging for somebody to fill them. Obviously, the answer is that you try to match up those who are unemployed with those jobs that are available.

If you don’t have adequate retraining facilities in order to make it possible for those who are unemployed to fill the jobs, such as for heavy equipment operators, heavy equipment mechanics and people who have the skills in order to fill the job, obviously you are going to have, on one hand, a shortage of skilled people and, on the other hand, you are going to have people unproductive, drawing welfare assistance or some form of unemployment insurance assistance. We think this is counterproductive.

There are too many of these jobs that do not offer any kind of satisfaction, thus contributing to destabilizing and high turnover rates. We have some employers who tell us in northern Ontario that there are certain segments of their work force that turn over 300 per cent a year because of the unattractiveness of the jobs. The range of jobs is heavily loaded at the blue-collar end. This means that the young and the educated find that they must go elsewhere to find jobs that offer satisfaction and promotional opportunities. The lure of the southern cities is strong.

Here can be found, for instance, all of the amenities so obviously absent in the north. Jobs here are varied and numerous and, because provincial policy is allowing and encouraging the continued expansion of this job market, northern aspirations will continue to be overshadowed.

In the absence of an overall industrial strategy, in the long run we are not going to find our place in the sun as long as we are going to have to compete with places like Haldimand-Norfolk and North Pickering. What you’ve got too much of down here we don’t seem to have enough of up there, Mr. Speaker. We say, what can be done about it?

It is clear that the problems of the north will not be solved without restraining growth in the south. The prospects of this government restraining that growth are bleak indeed in the absence of anything concrete to halt it or reverse it. In fact, the latest provincial planning document proposed to put eight million people in the Oshawa-Toronto-Hamilton megalopolis. That doesn’t bode well for the kind of even distribution of economic growth and wealth in the province. There are now roughly 3½ million people in this area.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand what this means in terms of job creation in the south with this kind of massive employment, increase in roads, recreational facilities, cultural facilities, housing and, in short, all of the things that the north needs so badly.

What this province needs is a clearly defined industrial strategy which will restrain uncontrolled expansion in the south, as well as encourage growth in the north. It must be accompanied by a manpower retraining policy. For example, if we could prevent the development of things like Nanticoke in the south, then the north would have a better chance of attracting both the project itself and the people with skills that suit northern needs. This is the kind of thing that we on this side of the House, and our industrial strategy, would do. The Manpower policy, in the first instance, would deal with the employment problems of the people already in the north.

Participation rates among women and native people are low; that must change. Skill levels are either low or inappropriate; that must change too. Job satisfaction is often poor; working conditions are sometimes bad. Improvements are necessary and possible. Adequate training programmes and facilities must be increased and upgraded to meet the obvious need.

As we over here in this party have always argued, basic services and amenities are a right of residents in every community, regardless of where they may live in this province. By finally providing them to our northern communities, our Manpower policy will be strengthened; northerners would be more inclined to stay in the north; and northern communities would become more attractive to residents of other parts of the province.

Improved living conditions in the north would also help solve another of the north’s most pressing problems -- the lack of professionals -- by attracting doctors, dentists, the kind of skilled engineers, whether they be mechanical, electrical or chemical engineers, who are in short supply, particularly in the mining and in the forestry field at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to impress upon the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), it is absolutely essential that they, in co-operation with their colleagues, come up with an overall development strategy for the Province of Ontario, so that when we implement a revised version of Design for Development for northwestern Ontario we will be assured that the kinds of things that we are trying to do in northwestern Ontario aren’t hampered by the kinds of things that are going on in the province generally.

If the government doesn’t have an overall strategy that says it will try to put a halt to the kind of development that’s creating the problems in the south of high cost of land assembly, high cost of building utility corridors, high cost of moving people, the tremendous encroachment upon valuable farmland, all of this kind of development, if unchecked, will continue to escalate and it will continue to cause all of us problems. It’s entirely unnecessary if we had that kind of dispersion of the economic growth in areas of the province that are better suited for it, and need it so much more.

If we in northern Ontario are to find our place in the sun, it is going to be as the result of a disincentive to establish in the south. If the government were to provide the kind of incentives that are possible in the north, it would reverse the trend. It would lessen the problems of too much growth down here and would solve a lot of our problems in the north by providing us with the kind of growth that we are capable of achieving.

It all hinges, Mr. Speaker, on what we have come to call the quality of life. There are many things that we can’t aspire to in small remote northern communities because we can’t achieve economies of scale. We can’t aspire to a hospital in every town. We can’t aspire to a doctor and a dentist, for some medical clinic in every small town. We can’t aspire to an area for recreational purposes in every small town. We can’t aspire to a cultural facility in every small town. But we should undertake to provide the kind of development that would enable us to be more viable.

We should be building more growth centres in the north. We have one in Thunder Bay, which is the primary centre, but obviously it can’t serve the needs of all of northwestern Ontario because distances militate against it. But by providing economic opportunities in both the primary sector and the secondary manufacturing sector, we would be able to make more communities more viable. We should be providing the basic infrastructure; I am talking about water, sewers, good roads, good educational facilities, good medical and dental facilities, good recreational facilities, and so on.

We should also be providing more centres; and I am not saying that we all aspire to have a Science Centre, a Royal Ontario Museum or an Ontario Place.

This government, by its policies, can provide greater viability to many areas in the north, whether they be in Kenora riding, Rainy River riding, my own riding of Thunder Bay, or the riding of Cochrane North, because we all face the same kinds of problems. We think this government should be developing an overall industrial strategy in order for us to implement Design for Development which incidentally is something that has to be looked at continually.

At the conference I was talking about, there was a good many people who traditionally are Conservative in their thinking who said: “Let’s destroy Design for Development.” I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was standing up trying to defend Design for Development before these people who, as I say, in many instances are traditionalists.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is a Conservative.

Mr. Stokes: Well, maybe I am a conservative, but I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. After me coming down here for seven years and arguing for Design for Development, I would be less than honest if I went up there and said, “Let’s scrap it.” It’s an imperfect document, it’s an imperfect vehicle, but it’s like democracy: you don’t throw it out until you have got something better to take its place.

What I tried to prevail upon them to accept was that we should keep it under continual review, because a good many of the things and conventional wisdom upon which Design for Development was based in 1970 have changed.

As I say, we have $2 billion worth of growth on the drawing board, but it’s like pulling hen’s teeth to get the kind of services we need to attract a sufficient number of people just to go forward with the kind of development that has already been announced and is on the drawing board. This government has to play a very active and significant role in providing us with the necessary services, first of all, to attract people into the north and, once we get them there, to make it attractive enough for them to stay.

Those are the kinds of things I think we have to do, and I don’t suggest we can do it all ourselves. We can prevail upon the federal government, through the DREE and Canada Development Corp. programmes, to provide sufficient capital for basic services in much the same way they have already done in Cornwall, and in the city of Thunder Bay to some extent. We think we need more of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Like closing up the bases and everything?

Mr. Stokes: Sure, they have done the same thing at Moosonee. Maybe this government would not have acted any differently. They would probably have done the same thing, but I would hope they would have provided --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We would have made some arrangements away ahead of time.

Mr. Stokes: Right -- to cushion the blow and provide an alternative for them. That’s the kind of thing I would hope that any responsible government would do.

I don’t want to go on much longer, Mr. Speaker, because I have gone past the time I had hoped to take. I do want to impress upon this government that if they are going to serve the people of northern Ontario in the way that I think they should serve them, they must have an overall industrial strategy so that the kinds of things we are trying to do in the north are not being thwarted at every turn by the kinds of things that are happening in the south and really shouldn’t be happening.

The only other thing I want to say is that central to this whole problem is an overall land-use plan for the Province of Ontario. No activity takes place unless you are using some land in some fashion or other. And, of course, what I’m saying is that unless there is an overall land-use plan for the Province of Ontario, it really doesn’t make much difference what the government does in overall industrial strategy. They go hand in hand. I think that this government is just kidding itself by allowing this kind of uncontrolled, unplanned development to go forward without an overall land-use plan in the Province of Ontario, and an overall industrial strategy.

In the next two or three weeks they’ve got some time to sit down with their respective policy fields and think about it. Hopefully, before not too long, they will come to the kind of thinking that I’ve been trying to bring to this problem over the last several months. Hopefully, we’ll reach a consensus and go on to bigger and better things for all of northern Ontario. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my voice to those who’ve spoken in congratulating the Speaker, both for his appointment to his office and for the manner in which he has conducted himself in this House. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to please convey that to Mr. Speaker Rowe. I’m going to try and be as quick as I can.

Mr. Haggerty: There is all the time in the world; just keep plugging away.

Mrs. Campbell: I will first touch, of course, on the matter of housing, being my area of criticism and my deep concern. I have to point out what to me are abject failures on the part of this government in this field. If we looked at the matter of land banking alone, there is no doubt that this party has been very much in favour of land banking in the past. However, at this point in time we are beginning to ask ourselves the question whether or not it is already too late for land banking to be effective in the way in which we could have hoped it would be.

Certainly, the way in which this government is proceeding in the business is one which is not effective. It’s interesting that there are so many people in this province who become very psychic about where the government is going to start the land bank; and it really results in this government purchasing land, in effect, through a middleman. Because somebody gets in there and buys up the land in advance of the government’s purchase, we’re left to pay exorbitant prices for property. In fact, this government is the biggest land speculator in the business. It is for this reason, perhaps, that it was impossible for the government to define a speculator in its land speculation tax legislation.

It is interesting that in gathering up this land, the government felt it could not possibly trust the local elected members to know something of what it had in mind. It couldn’t possibly take them into its confidence, nor apparently is it going to service this land. Surely, even a child can understand that that land has to be serviced if we are going to provide for the housing needs of the people of this province.

To me it is contemptible for the minister to stand up and condemn the municipalities for their failures in this field, when even what he offers the municipality for servicing is not really a fixed price, but up to $600 for sewer connections for municipal purposes.

I am advised that in the Sudbury area, unbeknownst to that municipality, land was acquired by this government and this bank, unplanned, has led to the dragging of feet in approving subdivisions in that area. This brings us to the question of the planning process. Nothing has been done to try to streamline this costly anachronism, and one wonders whether the recent release of information that the member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett), being the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), is now being appointed to the Northumberland task force is an indication that once more planning is going to be gathered again into the fists of the Treasurer of this province.

I suppose the question for the opposition at this time really is: Will the real planning minister stand up? It is no wonder that our processes are costly when we run from ministry to ministry and no one really knows who is in charge. Surely it would be conceivable for this government to try other methods:

(

a) To bring the people into the planning process at the very beginning of the process and not at the end of it, and

(

b) To shorten planning approvals, having once consulted the people.

We are certainly prepared to bring forth alternatives in these areas. What this government has been doing has been to stumble along, with shifts from ministry to ministry, and with shabby, outworn tools, and these can no longer apply in this province. What we are really doing now is to move behind events which are taking place much too quickly for this government to handle.

While we believe alternatives should be available to the people of the province in the housing field, for obvious reasons at this point in time, many have to live in rental accommodation whether they want to or not. They have no security of tenure, certainly not in this metropolitan area. They are the victims of rental increases which may or may not be justified. Certainly the increases are coming at a time when maintenance is deteriorating. That deterioration is not entirely the fault of the landlord. Part of it is due to the doubling up which is occurring as people try to survive in the rental market.

Mr. Speaker, you know our answer to this problem. We have introduced a private member’s bill to deal with these aspects. We do not believe in controls, but we do believe there has to be machinery for review of this kind of situation in this crisis period.

What is the government’s policy? It is, “Do telephone us, if you can get through the lines. Do let us know if you have a problem, and we will try to intercede with your landlord.” That is probably a good back-bencher’s approach when he or she is trying to deal with the problems of a constituent, but it is no answer for a government in these times.

I would like to turn briefly to the matter of health and welfare. This government cannot understand that a human being should not be divided into three parts -- two ministries and a municipal department -- yet this is still the government’s thrust. It does what it can to save hospital costs and, believe me, we’re sympathetic to it on that point. Then it moves patients into their own homes, wipes its hands of them from a health point of view and places them on welfare, a part of which is administered through the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

But really and honestly the government’s approach is still welfare. It’s like a rose by any other name but it’s still a skunk cabbage in the government’s eyes.

People are trying to sort out who is going to give them the assistance that they need, in some cases simply to stay alive. If a woman is married and disabled, she is really a nothing. She’s not even a cipher. She has no rights as a person. This is part of the government’s great programme for International Women’s Year.

The government has shown no concern for, nor understanding of, the part which nutrition plays in the whole field of poverty and the ability of children to achieve. We pointed out that a mother with one child has $1.86 a day each for food, clothing, transportation and entertainment, and the middle-class thinking of this ministry was that that was enough. I suggest that this ministry employ some of the members of the mother-led union to teach that ministry something of the economics of poverty. Then, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we might be able to effect change.

Again the government has raised the expectations of the parents of the retarded, and there are many needs and varying needs in a community such as Toronto. There are parents who can have their young people in the home with very limited support. There are others who need group homes where they can visit, because there are problems for them in coping with these who really have major difficulties. We need the daycare programmes. We need an expansion, but what have we actually done with this much-vaunted publicity in this field?

I would just like to touch again on the question of the problems of those persons in the community who are asked to receive patients from Ontario Hospitals. Certainly this party favours the de-institutionalizing of such patients. But there must be a programme of preparing a family for the acceptance of such patients and for support when they return to the home. There is no consideration being given to this aspect of the treatment of such patients.

Then we look at education, and I’m going to just touch on one small part of this. In Toronto the schools are basically flow becoming new Canadian schools. I’d like to give the House one example. Harbord Collegiate at one time used to be divided between what was classified as British and as Jewish students.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It wasn’t divided, it was almost all Jewish.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Almost 95 to 5.

Mrs. Campbell: All right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We were even allowed to be captain of the football team.

Mrs. Campbell: I’m glad I touched a nerve here, I thought I might. Now in that school we have three per cent British, four per cent Jewish and all of the rest are new Canadians. The Ministry of Education takes into consideration none of these problems. I’m advised that the Toronto board will be seeking the right to go to the Toronto taxpayers to obtain an approval of an additional $3 million for programmes to assist the families of those coming into the community. We have tried to ascertain what the advisory committee to the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation has to say in these matters.

Let me give you some of the horrendous things I’ve come across, Mr. Speaker. First of all, when there were negotiations ongoing with the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Filipino cultural unit in my riding had been promised $10,000 toward that unit. That cheque has never come. I have said, “What do you have to do? Go back and start another round of another year with another minister or where do we go from here?” Oddly enough, the ministry doesn’t know either.

When it comes to the matter of the Spanish-speaking people, What the board of education is trying to do and what some of the cultural community groups are trying to do is to prevent family breakdowns. They are approaching this matter on a team basis. But goodness knows where they go. Nobody seems to know and perhaps we have to wait for the lottery for the Spanish-speaking people.

Then there is the lovely, delightful example of the Agincourt community multi-cultural unit. It had been negotiating with the Minister of Community and Social Services and also with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, I’m led to believe, for about a year. They have said that they were amazed that the latter minister was embarrassed to find out that this too had been transferred to the new ministry and she had not been aware of it. And so it goes with our vaunted projects for assisting people.

I have one last matter that I must touch on. That is this government’s paltry commitment to International Women’s Year. If there were ever a slogan for it, I would say probably a little dab will do you comes closest to the thinking of this government.

Mr. B. Newman: That’s called the Brylcreem approach.

Mrs. Campbell: The government reposes so much confidence in women that it expects them to change the pattern -- or does it? -- by giving them $1,000 as against the hundreds of thousands of dollars which are given to promote other changes. I think perhaps that’s a little too much confidence to put even in women. They always find it so simple, when we deal with matters of equality, to trot out protection to women on the basis of, “Oh, we must be sure that they have equality,” but they don’t follow through with equality to them. They just use these games to try, I think, to get even with them because they want to be accepted as having a right to equal opportunities.

We have been through the rather miserable debates on the Employment Standards Act, and I am delighted to know that, possibly as a result of the criticism of the opposition, we are now going to find that maybe it’s possible that hairdressers and barbers are going to be classified as doing similar work. That’s maybe. And then tailors and seamstresses, maybe, are going to be doing similar work and therefore getting equal pay. It’s interesting that possibly the hairdresser has greater skills than the barber but that of course will never --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now, don’t get chauvinistic.

Mrs. Campbell: -- ever be considered.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don’t get chauvinistic.

Mr. Roy: A bit of order there.

Mrs. Campbell: All right, I’ll say this: In the Ontario civil service this year we have 35,000 women employees, 75.7 per cent of whom earn less than $9,000, but we have only 28 per cent of men in the civil service earning less than $9,000. This is a proud record. Wouldn’t it be better -- and I appeal to the provincial secretary -- wouldn’t it be better to ensure a decent job evaluation in this International Women’s Year than making pretty speeches which really aren’t going to change anything.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry, I’ve gone longer than I should have. I had to take issue with some of these things. Thank you very much.

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

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Has the member still lost his voice?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I hasten to inform the Minister of the Environment that my voice will last the course.

Mr. Ferrier: He may lose his head.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to depart from the normal budget windup of freewheeling political invective -- I think that is the way budget windups are normally characterized -- to deal with but one subject, since I fear I couldn’t deal with a great range of them, and to try to put in context, if I could, the asbestos controversy in Ontario, which has swirled about the Legislature and the riding of Scarborough East for the last two weeks. I don’t know why the Provincial Secretary for Social Development shakes her head. If she’d like to take the microphone and tell me, I’d be pleased to hear it.

Mr. Haggerty: An important topic.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I would. I am a little appalled; appalled by some of the tactics of the opposition in exploiting a situation that I think goes far beyond any partisan politics. I am interested in seeing that a conclusion is reached whereby the workers are assured of safe jobs and the community is assured of a safe environment. I am not interested in getting headlines. I am just interested in finding out what the problem is and attempting to do something about it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I endorse that. I too hope that at some point the workers will be safeguarded and the community will be safeguarded. The provincial secretary will forgive me, I hope, for saying to her that I am more than a trifle appalled at the indifference which the government has shown throughout this episode and at the fashion in which it has decided to downgrade and depreciate an issue which is of immense public importance and very great importance to the health and lives of the workers involved.

I am going to try to put it out for the provincial secretary as carefully and as thoughtfully as I can. I quite concede that I feel this issue pretty deeply. I really believe that throughout the piece, except for the occasional adversary exchanges in this House, my own role and that of the media and that of others who have been involved has been consistently responsible. And if it can be demonstrated otherwise then I invite the minister to do so again and she can interrupt me where she feels I am wrong.

Mr. Speaker, let me very briefly remind you of the chronology, one aspect of which won’t be familiar to the members of this House because most of them weren’t in the committee session.

I was prompted to raise the matter of Johns-Manville partly because of a letter I had received from the widow of one of the workers who died at Christmas-time in 1974, and partly because I had a visit from the president and safety committee of the union, at my constituency service centre, some two weeks ago. I didn’t take what they gave me at face value. I checked rather carefully the documentation which came to hand because, like the provincial secretary, I was anxious about putting on the record things which could be wrong, because it is a matter of some enormous anxiety. So I checked everything that I subsequently put on the record.

The sources, of course, were hardly sources that are debatable. One of the matters that has been dealt with publicly, the death of a number of workers was from Hansard in July, 1973, in a statement in answer to a question put forward by my colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr). The number of workers on compensation came, on Jan. 9, 1975, from the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) in answer to a question again placed by the member for Sandwich-Riverside. So the particular facts and figures which were used came from the government’s documents and the government’s reports.

The question of the testing levels and the samples were taken directly from the occupational health branch reports, which had found their way to the hands of the workers.

Confident, therefore, that my material was based on valid and objective findings, I introduced it into the debate at the Workmen’s Compensation Board committee. The following night, Mr. Speaker, the radio programme “As It Happens” introduced evidence which I did not know of in advance -- I read it that night on the tape -- and which, in fact, went further than anything which had been introduced in the committee.

The “As It Happens” people had found the study from the Ontario Research Foundation in 1972, testing the asbestos fibres in the air in the school area across from the plant. They then got in touch with Dr. Carnow, a recognized epidemiologist dealing in asbestos in the United States, and asked him for his views on the levels of asbestos fibres. It was Dr. Carnow who said that he thought the levels in some cases ranged 57 times above what he would consider to be a safe level.

Hon. W. Newman: What does he consider a safe level, can the member tell me?

Mr. Lewis: He considers a safe level 1/100 fibre per cubic centimetre, Mr. Speaker; but I will come to that shortly.

I think I am going to be able to introduce evidence into the Legislature tonight which suggests that for asbestos the only safe level is zero.

Therefore, my feelings and those of a great many other people are obviously ones of pretty great concern. I would have thought that in political terms and legislative terms, it’s appropriate to raise those matters; that that’s the function both of an opposition and a government when there appears to be a matter of immense health hazard or potential health hazard, particularly for the workers in the plant.

An hon. member: There is no question about it.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t feel on as firm ground about matters outside the plant, because I don’t know enough about it and my reading has not persuaded me enough about matters outside the plant. But, believe me, I have no equivocation on matters within the plant. I know the Provincial Secretary for Social Development represents these workers and I am glad she has finally said something on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, after the “As It Happens” programme was played and there were questions raised in the Legislature, there was, you will recall, a guarded defence of the company by the Minister of Health.

There was also an assertion that everything was safe from someone in the respiratory and lung disease unit -- what was it? -- of York county or of East York. It was someone who had done samples. And there was the assistant medical officer of health of Scarborough who said he was satisfied with the findings.

Then there was the question raised of blue asbestos and its particularly aggravating impact. Then the press and the media dealt in some explicit way with a number of case histories of the widows and the workmen involved, seeming, Mr. Speaker, to put on the record pretty firmly that there was a serious problem here; that this wasn’t some fantasy we were dealing with; that this wasn’t some generalized area we were dealing with; and that it is a very real, human condition.

And then there was the charge of fearmongering. Then there was the evidence of the report linking cancer of the larynx to asbestos, done by Dr. Morgan at the University of Toronto.

Then there was the press conference held by Johns-Manville, who brought in their medical expert, Dr. Paul Kotin; a press conference which I attended although members of the Ministry of Health or the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development didn’t see the need to attend.

And then there was the visit this morning to the plant by the Minister of Health. I believe the provincial secretary was there as well, and the Minister of Labour as well; all of them who trooped through the plant.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having mentioned the chronology, I want to make some comments on the events and I hope to introduce some specific material.

First of all, I simply want to emphasize once again, in unmistakable terms, that every single specific piece of information which was put before this House is grounded on the evidence that comes from the ministries them selves.

One of the frustrating things about dealing with matters of occupational disease is that so much of the information is speculative. One of the problems that so many of us had when dealing with silicosis and radiation at Elliot Lake, or the consequences of vinyl chloride, or even of lead poisoning, was that we were always dealing in fragments of this or that.

One of the advantages in the instance, in the ironic sense, was that every piece of information which has been put to this Legislature is grounded on the facts which the ministries have available to them. There is no area for debate. There is no area for dispute. There is no area for argument. The deaths, the compensable victims and the testing reports are all there in writing; definable.

The question of whether or not a Minister of Health should find his first response to be that of a guarded defence of the company is obviously a different kind of decision. I’m going to talk about that in a different context in a moment.

The community responds in a funny way to these kinds of things, and I’ve never quite understood it. Maybe it’s a difference in visceral reaction. I would have thought that the response which should come to the evidence that mounts in an instance like this, is a response which says, “By God, if there is even one possible iota of truth in all of this, and clearly there is, then what we have to do as a government, and as a community, is to protect the workers and the citizens. And we’re going to range every conceivable safety tool we have at our control to do precisely that.”

A response which depreciates the problem, or pretends that it doesn’t exist, or creates the illusion that there isn’t a problem is a response that is so defensive, and in one way so self-destructive, that it’s hardly worth talking about. I couldn’t get over that assistant medical officer of health in Scarborough, and his mindless acceptance of the fibre counts and their significance, or lack of significance that came to him. Here is a man who admitted publicly that he knew nothing about the problem -- he said so, “I know nothing about it.

I’m waiting for the information.” He pointed out, in a very sage way, that only 40 per cent of the people who were bitten by rabid animals get rabies -- a pretty profound observation in order to reassure the community that only a small percentage of those who were endangered would perhaps have their health impaired. I couldn’t believe the kinds of arguments that were brought to hand in order to pretend that there wasn’t a problem.

There was a very real problem. And it’s reprehensible, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, both on the part of the Minister of Health, and tonight on the part of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, and on the part of the assistant medical officer of health, to make statements which are utterly without foundation in the face of statements which are utterly with foundation. That’s what makes the government’s position so reprehensible.

When it has the evidence arrayed in front of it, absolutely irrefutable, instead of responding by saying the health and safety of the workers are paramount it responds by some kind of senseless defensive mechanism, as though very little was at stake. I happen to agree with you.

The government could have cooled me out, and everybody else, within 24 hours by saying that it would do lung and sputum tests on every one of the workers, by giving the asbestos workers the right to appear before the Ham commission, by saying that the government would enforce its own regulatory standards, by saying that it would check the ambient air in the community and move on the plant if need be. It did none of those things. It vacillated, it equivocated, it played with it, and, finally, the government viewed it as one of those partisan considerations. I don’t regard that with respect -- don’t ask that of me -- not in an instance of this kind.

The blue asbestos debate which took place, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the members opposite, and particularly to the provincial secretary, is also a phoney debate. While I am speaking on this matter I might as well lay out some of the specifics. All of the work that has been done in asbestos about which one can read, about which we know, demonstrates forcefully that whether it’s blue asbestos fibres or white asbestos fibres, the effect on the worker is absolutely identical.

It may happen more quickly with blue asbestos, but it is a charade to draw distinction, a distinction which the people in the occupational health branch were quick to give to the Minister of Health in the hope that something could be done, in the hope that the public feeling could be deflected by the sudden argument that it was only one facet of the asbestos which was used, and that it constituted only two to seven per cent of the materials in the Johns-Manville plant. Utter nonsense. It raises questions for me about those who work within the occupational health branch.

Mostly I want to say something about the response to the evidence, generally from the Ministry of Health, and from the other ministers and from the government. I want to put it to you as directly as I can, Mr. Speaker, that I was dismayed and saddened by the attitude of the Minister of Health. I do not understand it.

It is no great secret in this Legislature that I am one of those people who is very fond of the Minister of Health. I have had contact with him in the past in a number of ways and have found him immediately responsive to one health problem after another. I did not understand why it was necessary in this instance to take a head-in-the-sand attitude.

This is a subject in which I have personally interested myself, and I have talked to my colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside, who knows much about it, as well as to other members of the caucus. I have a very strong feeling that on the question of environmental and occupational disease in Ontario, this province somehow has not yet grasped the realities. This province has not yet recognized the evidence that has been accumulated over the last 20 years in the United Kingdom and in the United States.

This province simply doesn’t understand the incredible information that is accumulating about the effect of these poisonous substances in the work place. We are approximately five to 10 years behind in our assessments, our evaluations and the implications which should be drawn from them.

Those gaps occur from time to time in the life of a government. Obviously they occurred at Elliot Lake. There is no one in this Legislature who can deny it. We wouldn’t have had the royal commission at Elliot Lake if the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Natural Resources had been reading the material on dust and radiation in the uranium industry. What has happened in the asbestos industry is exactly parallel to that.

I am dismayed by the myopia and the intransigence which is indicated by the Minister of Health. I don’t understand why adversary partisan considerations suddenly betrayed the public trust. The Minister of Health has an immense public trust, as everybody else does over on those benches. Scientists are relatively neutral; they chronicle what happens and make their assessment.

But the social policy which follows is the policy of a government The government makes the policy on the basis of the scientific findings; and on the basis of those findings, it measures the costs and benefits in terms of what society will accept and what society won’t accept. But the government’s policy here is simply unacceptable. It has never recognized what is at stake.

My colleague, the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), introduced Dr. Morgan’s survey on cancer of the larynx and its link to asbestos. I understand from members of the media that the Minister of Health was raising sceptical queries today about that particular study; that it wasn’t full enough, not sound enough, not impressive enough.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker: I spoke this afternoon at length to Dr. Irving Selikoff of New York, who is the acknowledged international authority on asbestos. Nobody comes close to Irving Selikoff. He has done every study, every paper; he has participated in every submission on standards.

Dr. Irving Selikoff told me -- I didn’t know this -- that he was the referee on the paper from the University of Toronto and Dr. Morgan, and he recommended its publication. Why did he recommend its publication? Because he found that not only was it statistically sound, not only was it impressive in the use of its scientific analysis, but it exactly corresponded in its findings to those of a group of physicians in Manchester, England, who had used the same methodology and determined the same outcome. He thought, on balance, as a man who is involved in this field, that that gave to the Morgan study immense authenticity.

I am tired, if you don’t mind my saying so, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of trivial, defensive response of those in the occupational health branch in the Ministry of Health as they try to give a rationale as a substitute for responding to something as important as these occupational disease matters. The Minister of Health’s role is to protect the health and life of the workers. We agree on that. Otherwise he joins the endless list of those who view the health and the life of the workers as expendable.

In all of this, through the whole last two weeks, not once from the Minister of Labour, or the Minister of Health, or the Minister of the Environment, has there come one iota of vigorous and urgent response. It is as though everything is under control. Well, it’s not under control. It’s not under control at Johns-Manville. I want to say that again tonight and I want to say it with absolute conviction and I’m going to continue to say it, because I think at some point a more legitimate response will be forthcoming from the government.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development visited the plant this morning and the Minister of Health said it looked like not a bad place. Does she agree with that? Right. It didn’t seem to be very dusty or dirty. Does she agree with that? Yes, there may have been a few areas that were no hell but, on balance, it seemed okay. So she left the plant and announced to the world that the plant is not too bad. Because that’s what was done. That’s what was done. It was in the corridor outside the Legislature after question period. And I’m supposed to believe that that’s responsible political behaviour?

I mean, did the Provincial Secretary for Social Development count the asbestos fibres she inhaled as she walked through? Was she aware of the testing? Did she go in with a konimeter and test as she went along? Is she saying that ii she went down the Rio Algom mine in Elliot Lake that she would note the radiation in the air and come out and make a statement about a clean bill of health? That’s irresponsibility. She goes in without measurements; she goes in without equipment; she goes in without testing. They’ve got 550 workers who have been working in that plant for several years, some of them for up to 25 years; many of them who are ill; many of them who will become ill --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It was just a social call.

Mr. Lewis: -- and on the basis of a sauntering call she placates everything that people are concerned about. That’s no answer. It reminds me of when her whole social development branch trooped off, like that little circus that she had -- where was it? -- up to northwestern Ontario, and she cluck-clucked and tut-tutted her way through the mercury pollution for the Indians in the northwest and she came down and she expressed concern.

Can she tell us what’s happened since? Can she give us one example of where government policy is changed? Is she in touch with the group that’s doing the testing of the Indians up there? Does she know what the results have been in the last couple of weeks? Of course not. Because, having made the ritual trip she then washes her hands of it. And having made the ritual trip through Johns-Manville this morning, she would like to wash her hands of it.

Well, it’s not going to be permitted. The minister doesn’t just troop her way through a plant and come out and give it a clean bill of health when she has all the evidence in the world in front of her that it’s a fairly serious matter. Why do I say that the minister has all the evidence in the world in front of her? Because she has, and I repeat it for the umpteenth time.

It’s not been put on the record of the House; it’s the first time that it happens here. She has in front of her the inspection of May, 1973, the testing of January, 1974, the inspection of June, 1974, the testing of December, 1974, and each and every one of those events demonstrated that the safeguards which had been established for the plant, the asbestos levels, were not being adhered to, and the directives which had been issued by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health to clean up were not being adhered to.

Now they may think, collectively over there that that’s some kind of trifle, but our contention is that it’s a matter of the utmost seriousness, and that every day it is permitted that the levels in that plant exceed even this government’s unacceptable regulations, every day we are imperilling the lives and health of those workers. I consider that a statement of fact, of simple, explicit fact, and I don’t understand how all of them can sit over there so absolutely sanguine in the face of that fact.

When Dr. Paul Kotin, who is vice-president of health for Johns-Manville, came to the press conference at the Sheraton a few days ago and was asked about the levels in the plant at the various locations, he said in response that he was concerned about those levels. He was concerned about those levels, and he asked one of the other senior people in the plant to answer for them; because as the provincial secretary will recall, a great many of those levels were above the two fibres per cubic centimetre which are permitted.

The person who is in charge of testing in the plant, the expert in charge, replied to the press conference by saying: “These tests were conducted over a 15 or 20 minute period. We think they should be conducted over a much longer period. Therefore, we find the tests taken by the occupational health branch as being suspect.”

One of the reporters asked him what period the company took its own tests over. The answer was 90 minutes. I asked him: How is it that you’ve never raised with the Ministry of Health your views of their inadequate testing, since you feel it to be inadequate and it shows you above the threshold limit values?” His response was: “There are no appreciable differences between our testing and that of the Ministry of Health and therefore we have never drawn it to their attention.”

In other words, everything that the ministry has found from within its own government testing apparatus is sustained by what the company has found. Now at the press conference, Dr. Paul Kotin, on the payroll of Johns-Manville, said: “Two fibres per cubic centimetre is a takeoff point and anything above it is dangerous, so that one must always move to be below it. But in up to 78 per cent of the locations tested we were above what is considered by the Ministry of Health to be a safe level.” Does that make sense to the ministry?

I mean if someone who represents the people who work in that plant says that, does that make sense? That we have their director of health saying it is dangerous above two, and yet that’s what they find in 78 per cent of the locations -- or, to be more accurate, in 50 to 60 per cent of the locations; the rest being above one, which is above the recommended level set by the occupational health branch. Surely that can’t be acceptable to the ministry? Surely that should cause the minister some anxiety? Surely to draw attention to those facts publicly is precisely what this process is all about?

Let me take it a step further, to the occupational health people. I’m having very mixed feelings about this whole subject in the last few weeks. The occupational health people and the Workmen’s Compensation Board people are statisticians; they are essentially statisticians. They’re graph readers; they’re clinical testers; they deal in cases and they deal in numbers. There’s no feeling in the reports. There’s no sense of what is human in the reports. There’s no outrage in the reports. They just note what the situation is. They obviously feel no compulsion. They feel no concern at what they are finding and what their readings show. They just make note of them.

I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. I have in my possession now a document, a piece of correspondence between the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Health which I am going to -- what? -- reveal or use at the royal commission on mining, the Ham commission, next Tuesday afternoon. It’s a document, which I think every member of this House will find horrifying. It’s a document which demonstrates how much is known about the dangers to the lives of workers in Ontario and how little is revealed.

I don’t know what moral demands one has to make on civil servants, ministers or governments about this kind of information. I don’t know whether there is a moral imperative for the government to make it public. I don’t know whether civil servants feel they can behave like statisticians forever and repress the stuff forever. The occupational health branch people, I say with regret, simply note on ledger forms, they simply note on graph paper the information that comes to them and they never feel bound to reveal any of it.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, why I think it is necessary to reveal it and I’ll tell you what I have learned and then the Provincial Secretary for Social Development can make her own judgements and maybe they can be conveyed to the Ministry of Health.

We have a standard in Ontario of two fibres of asbestos per cubic centimetre. It might be of some interest to the House to know how that standard was arrived at. In 1968 something called the British Occupational Health Society published a study of the Turner Brothers Asbestos Co. in Rochdale, England. It was a study based on workers who had been there for a number of years -- at least over 10 years -- some 290 workers. It was the only plant that had been measuring fibres per cubic centimetre over a great many years. These workers had been working in a level of roughly four to five fibres per cubic centimetre for 10 years or more.

The 290 workers were chest x-rayed. The chest x-rays were looked at by one of the doctors, a Dr. Knox, who was the medical officer of health for the company, and the findings were corroborated by a Dr. Holmes who was the chief engineer of the company, and it was learned that eight of the workers had asbestosis. They felt in 1968, if such a small number of workers had asbestosis on the basis of these findings, that if they lowered their standard to two fibres per cubic centimetre, they could eliminate almost all asbestosis; and that, in 1968, was their recommended level, which the British promptly implemented.

In 1970, Dr. Knox, the doctor for the company, was replaced by a Dr. Lewinsohn who went back to the same 290 men and looked at the x-rays again and found to his astonishment that in the three-year interim, because the x-rays had been originally looked at in 1967, and the report written in 1968, 40 per cent of the x-rays now showed lung conditions, outright asbestosis or pre-asbestosis. Dr. Lewinsohn published a scientific paper indicating that the level of two fibres per cubic centimetre was, therefore, probably suspect.

In any event -- and I want to emphasize this as strongly as I can -- what then emerged was that, even though two fibres per cubic centimetre might be safe, it was safe only for asbestosis; it was not safe for cancer. Now how did that appear?

In 1974 Granada Television in the United Kingdom looked for the 290 men who had been x-rayed in 1970. They found that 26 of the men had died. Many of them had died of lung cancers. Three of them, an almost supernatural percentage, all things considered, had died of mesothelioma, which we know is a cancer that can only come from exposure to asbestos fibres and is always fatal.

Therefore, the scientific community drew the conclusion that two fibres per cubic centimetre might have some application to asbestosis but had absolutely no application whatsoever to the prevention of cancer.

I asked Dr. Selikoff today, “What is a safe level?” He said, “I don’t know what is a safe level. I know that two is not a safe level. I suspect that zero may be a safe level.”

He said to me -- and here is another matter of interest -- that it was his impression, as the leading scientist in the field -- he wouldn’t acknowledge that; I am stating it -- that the plants in the United States were uniformly safer than the plants in Canada. In the United States most of the plants were below two asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre now. And it was known in the industry that even though our standards, or guidelines, were stricter, they were not enforced as vigorously at the moment as they are being enforced in the United States.

Why are the guidelines being enforced so vigorously in the United States? Because in 1971 and 1972 the Secretary of Labor’s department held hearings on asbestos, dealing with the Paterson tragedy and the Corning tragedy at Tyler, Texas, which elicited a great deal of testimony.

I want to read you something, if I may, Mr. Speaker, in order to put some things in context. This is from the book, “Expendable Americans,” by Paul Brodeur. I could have got the original testimony, but I don’t see why I shouldn’t crib it. I want to go to the first day of the testimony of the bearings in 1972 and read you just a small portion of the book.

“The hearings had begun by the time I had had some lunch and returned to the conference room. As I took a seat, I saw that Maciborski” a Johns-Manville worker who had mesothelioma “and Dr. Borow” the community doctor in Manville, where the cases of cancer were emerging at the time “had been giving testimony at a witness table at the front of the room -- to the right of Goldenberg,” the then Secretary of Labor “the hearing examiner, and directly opposite a cross-examination panel consisting of Nicholas DeGregario, an attorney with the Department of Labor’s office of the solicitor, and Gerald F.

Scannell, acting director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s office of standards. Toward the end of his remarks, Dr. Borow said that he had now encountered 52 cases of mesothelioma in the Manville area, and that all the victims of the disease had worked for Johns-Manville with the exception of two, who had simply lived in the community.”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I could interrupt the member for just one moment in order to see if it’s the wish of the House to extend this sitting. I’ll entertain a motion to that effect.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves that the House sit beyond 10:30 o’clock, p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t have much more, Mr. Speaker.

“Dr. Borow and Maciborski were followed at the witness table by Dr. Nicholson, who began his testimony by stating that the health experience of the American asbestos workers could be described only as a national tragedy. Referring to the mortality study Dr. Selikoff and Dr. Hammond had made of insulation workers in the Newark-New York area, Dr. Nicholson reminded his listeners that two in 10 of those men had died of lung cancer, one in 10 of gastrointestinal cancer, nearly one in 10 of mesothelioma, one in 10 of other cancers, and almost one in 10 of asbestosis.

“‘Past standards are not an appropriate standard for occupational exposure to asbestos, simply because all past standards were conceived only for the purpose of preventing asbestosis,’ Dr. Nicholson continued. ‘But asbestosis is obviously not the major problem among asbestos workers. Cancer is the major problem. Cancer accounts for 75 per cent of the excess deaths among the asbestos-insulation workers studied by Dr. Selikoff and Dr. Hammond, and this asbestos cancer hazard is not appropriately covered by the proposed asbestos standard.’ Dr.

Nicholson went on to say that no knowledge now existed of a safe working level of exposure to asbestos which would prevent the occurrence of cancer, and he urged that asbestos not be used in the work place except with approved techniques and methods designed to remove asbestos dust from the working environment. ‘There is evidence that a standard of two fibres per cubic centimetre of air will be inadequate for the prevention of asbestos disease,’ he said. ‘The recently measured long-term exposure of the asbestos-insulation workers, whose disastrous disease experience has been documented by Dr. Selikoff and Dr.

Hammond, was approximately three fibres per cubic centimetre, even prior to the implementation of improved control measures.’”

Now, is it possible for anyone over there to understand what is being said? All of the information which we now have at hand has been based on exposure levels of three or four fibres per cubic centimetre, and what does it show, Mr. Speaker? It shows the following, that for every 100 workers exposed over a long period of time -- between 20 and 30 years -- to two, three, or four fibres per cubic centimetre, 55 will contract asbestosis, 12 will contract lung cancer and four will contract mesothelioma. What has been demonstrated about asbestos in the United States has application to this country.

Our documentation is coming later, but the conditions under which people worked were the same, and if that is the consequence of working at levels between two and five fibres per cubic centimetre, then the level of two is simply unacceptable, and to allow even a fraction in excess of two is morally unacceptable.

The experts say 1/100th. Some say zero. I say to simply --

Hon. W. Newman: What size fibres is the member talking about?

Mr. Lewis: What size fibres? As a matter of fact --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Don’t do this.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, the minister raises something that is scientifically interesting. I don’t want to get into it in detail. All that they measure --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I will if he wants me to. All that is measured are those particles, those fibres that are in excess of five --

Hon. W. Newman: Microns.

Mr. Lewis: -- micrograms in length.

Hon. W. Newman: Five microns.

Mr. Lewis: Five microns in length.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Just a second. That’s how we establish our standards within the workplace -- the fibres that are measured are beyond five microns in length. They don’t even begin to account for the fibres that are even smaller. The fact of the matter is that they just don’t know how to measure the smaller fibres which are inhaled, so they only measure the fibres which are beyond five microns in length. And on that basis they have found, up until now, that of every 100 workers exposed from 20 to 30 years, Selikoff’s projections, based on his studies, are that 55 will get asbestosis, 12 will get lung cancer and four will get mesothelioma.

Suppose he is wrong? Suppose it is only half of that? Suppose it is only a quarter of that? What are we quibbling about? Is it worth the life of one worker? Obviously not. The question then is: Why the defence of measurements which are clearly above the permissible levels set by the ministries? Why is the minister prepared to give Johns-Manville one iota of the benefit of the doubt? Why is he prepared for a second to equivocate or qualify the government’s response? I don’t understand that. I just don’t understand it.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, the hon. member doesn’t understand the figures we are talking about.

Mr. Lewis: I think I understand them very well.

Hon. W. Newman: Would he like to hear them? Would he like to hear them?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I think I understand them very well.

What the Minister of the Environment is trying to confuse, perhaps inadvertently, is the question of measurements within the plant and the question of measurements outside the plant, and I know there is a distinction. I beg him to understand I know there is a distinction.

I am dealing with the in-plant reality. The in-plant reality is one of a continuing serious health hazard. I’m not going to get into the philosophic questions with the provincial secretary about matters of value of life -- mind you I’d like to, believe me I’d like to -- but I’m just putting to the government that the measurements we have suggest that something has to be done by government, other than the kind of muted posturing which has come from a number of the ministers. And I hope that those changes will occur.

Mr. Speaker, I have to bring this to an end. I want to tell the provincial secretary and the Minister of Health that I haven’t the slightest, not the slightest, tinge of regret for having opened all of this up. There’s been more activity at cleaning up Johns-Manville in the last two weeks than there was in the previous two years. If it’s possible to get every one of those location readings down below two, and one day down to a standard of zero, then maybe a number of lives will be saved, and a number of health conditions will be averted 10 or 15 years from now.

I do not believe for a moment that anyone should be sanguine about it. I think that all of the evidence that is available from international authorities shows that Ontario is on the wrong track.

There are two responses possible to an issue like this. One is defensive, and the other is vigilant. The government has chosen to be defensive. I’m asking them to throw that rubbish out and to respond in a manner which is positively ferocious when the life and health of the workers are involved. They don’t have to feel badly about it.

I concede what the Minister of Health said the other day; it’s only in the last few years that occupational health has come to the attention of everyone, and that everyone is beginning to understand its implications. But one doesn’t have to be a clairvoyant to know what the future will hold. It’s all documented now. It’s all laid out. All the statistics and studies are there. There’s no more question. The only question is how low do you go?

Mr. Haggerty: The hon. member for Scarborough West is 20 years behind his time.

Mr. Lewis: And when the minister gets some scientific difference, then he opts on the side of caution, opts on the side of caution. Let me tell the Minister of Health while he’s here that I put it to him that he should move into the asbestos industry and clean it up in Ontario, and make it a model on the North American continent.

If he wants me to plead with him, I’ll plead with him. If he wants me to beg him, I’ll beg him. I don’t care what it takes to prompt his response.

I know that the ministry can, happily, do health examinations on every one of those men. I had a call today from a doctor at the Sick Children’s Hospital who offered to do pulmonaries on every one of the men; because he has some sense, from what he has already seen, that the problem may be far more severe than it is. It is not a doctor I know, incidentally; it came out of the blue. If the minister has members of the medical fraternity offering to do that for him -- and he shakes his head as though he knows of him -- why not take them up on it? Why not, therefore, do health examinations on the men; reduce the levels in the plant;